Slashdot Mirror


Wikileaks Co-founder Julian Assange Arrested in London (theguardian.com)

Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange has been arrested at the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where the WikiLeaks founder was granted refuge in 2012 while on bail in the UK over sexual assault allegations against him in Sweden. From a report: At the time, Assange claimed that if he was extradited to Sweden he might be arrested by the US and face charges relating to WikiLeaks's publication of hundreds of thousands of US diplomatic cables. The journalist and Assange supporter John Pilger called last week for people to "fill the street outside the embassy and protect him and show solidarity with a courageous man." US authorities have never officially confirmed that they have charged Assange, but in November 2018 a mistake in a document filed in an unrelated case hinted that criminal charges might have been prepared in secret. London's Metropolitan police released a statement which said officers had executed a warrant after the Ecuadorian government withdrew asylum.

929 comments

  1. Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Kunedog · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You don't expose Hillary and just walk away.

    1. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually now is the least-bad time for him to be arrested. He helped Trump's campaign, and they both share a raging hate-boner for Hillary. Perhaps he can expect a presidential pardon?

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, he was a hero until be exposed the wrong people. Then the media campaigns began.

      It's not the evil three letter agencies that abuse their power and ruin your life. It's journalists who do not tolerate dissent.

    3. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      You're assuming he ever sees a proper legal process and isn't immediately whisked away to some US black site.

      Trump might be willing to pardon him, but that involves him being properly prosecuted by proper legal channels and not the deep state hiding him in some secret prison. Already we're seeing the left-wing rage machine try and bury this story to make it easier for his whereabouts to be hidden. Shadowbans on Twitter are hiding messages of support for Assange and the left-wing media is refusing to cover the story.

    4. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by bobbied · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You don't expose Hillary and just walk away.

      Not that he walked away. Spending 6 years cooped up in a single building in down town London is not exactly living the good life and has got to be a mental strain. Based on the video I saw, the guy has not aged well and appears to be a mental case now. Of course that's what his hosts are saying about him, that they didn't think it was healthy for him to continue to be under house arrest like he was.

      I suspect that he's not really in all that much danger. He may be in jail for the majority of what remains of his life, but the last 6 years where not kind to him to start with. He may be much better off, though less visible in the years to come. If indeed he has mental issues now, he can get treatment. I wish him the best, but we all knew he was either going to die in the embassy under effective house arrest or face the music someday.

      And about exposing Hillary... She exposed herself, (that's a mental picture I wish I hadn't seen) Julian just pointed it out like the little boy who said the "Look! The emperor has no clothes". Trump benefited as a result. So in a way, you can blame Julian for at least part of Hillary's loss.... (As if she needs any more items on her "it's not my fault" list.)

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    5. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Patent+Lover · · Score: 5, Informative

      He was holed up in that embassy a good 4 years before the Hillary stuff.

    6. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Podesta is the one who exposed her.

    7. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by KeensMustard · · Score: 1, Informative
      Yeah that would require Trump to admit that he needed help - not a good idea to cross trumps demented ego.

      And when I say demented, I mean he has dementia.

    8. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by KeensMustard · · Score: 1, Troll

      Trump does what he is told.

    9. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 0

      He had mental issues before he was arrested, and cluster B personality disorders aren't treatable. Only thing is he may have further mental issues now.

    10. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by jgtg32a · · Score: 0

      Presidential Medal of Freedom
      Awarded to individuals who have made “an especially meritorious contribution to the security or national interests of the United States, world peace, cultural or other significant public or private endeavors.”
       
      Yeah I could see Trump doing that

    11. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      And when I say demented, I mean he has dementia.

      Scurrilous lies. I'd like to know the oranges of that story.

    12. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't expose Hillary and just walk away.

      Damn right. Sent him to Gitmo!

    13. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you one of those geniuses who thinks that Hillary somehow controls the world? I'll cut to the chase and let oy know that you're a moron.

    14. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would become an actual fan of Trump if he pardoned Assange. I'm not holding my breath, mind you, but it would be a heck of a symbol that the US still has some tenuous hold on the rule of law.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    15. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Already we're seeing the left-wing rage machine try and bury this story to make it easier for his whereabouts to be hidden.

      It's the lead story on CNN, Fox "news", the Washington Post, the New York Times, the BBC, and probably countless other news sites. If someone is trying to bury this story, they're not doing a very good job.

    16. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If indeed he has mental issues now, he can get treatment.

      Apparently, you're not familiar with the US prison system.

      Imprisonment is the treatment for mental illness here.

    17. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump does what he is told.

      And you're full of more shit than Trumps Twitter feed, which ironically validates just how wrong you are.

    18. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      An in the end, you are just another god damn moron.

    19. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and even Asylum although I'm sure the 9th circuit court will somehow rule asylum can't be given to him.

      A Pardon will be forever, but asylum could be revoked by the next president.

    20. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps he can expect a presidential pardon?

      First, let's see if there's a US federal crime with which to charge him. I can't even imagine what it might be. Assange very likely hasn't broken any US laws.

      If Trump wants to suddenly come out as pro-America instead of anti-America, the real guy to pardon is Snowden!

    21. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Zak3056 · · Score: 2

      Of course that's what his hosts are saying about him, that they didn't think it was healthy for him to continue to be under house arrest like he was.

      Not an Assange fan, but I'm pretty sure the small room in the embassy is going to beat the 23 hours a day in solitary in a 6x8 room, which is what he has to look forward to after extradition to the US.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    22. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Indeed. It's pretty much on the front page of every outlet around the world. This is what I'd call the opposite of "burying a story".

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    23. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't let a little thing like accurate chronology of events get in the way of a good conspiracy.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    24. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by greythax · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You know, I don't understand why more extreme right wing people didn't vote for Hillary. They typically say they want a strong president, and evidently Hillary is in charge of every intelligence agency and enforcement organization, even while not actually holding public office. Such that those organizations dare not even speak her name. Her power is so complete that she can kill people who she has never met, and force every news agency on earth, even fox, not to carry the story. She can run an international pedophile ring out of a pizza parlor and never even get investigated.

      In short, her power to control the nation is basically supernatural. Hillary is the witch in every wardrobe. She is the horror under every bed.

      One would think that kind of competence would appeal to someone all about authority.

    25. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Informative

      He's being charged with conspiracy to commit computer intrusion, and one of the reasons for his arrest was a US extradition request:

      https://edition.cnn.com/uk/liv...

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    26. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Perhaps he can expect a presidential pardon?

      This is the Trump/Barr Justice Department that's arresting Assange. It's not some shadowy "Obama deep state". The charges against Assange date from 2017 (when Trump was president) and the warrant was issued now (when Trump is president). They chose to do this now.

      You've got to remember, Trump has a long history of screwing over people who have done work on his behalf. Don't be surprised.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    27. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mr Assange & Wikileaks is a tool of the Kremlin. The evidence is clear for anyone to see: Their single focus on leaking material related to the US; Somehow no transparency is needed for the authoritarian government that sponsors them and feeds them information. Odd, right?
      Its hard to think of anyone less appropriate for recognition of meritorious contribution to the security and interests of the US.

    28. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by gtall · · Score: 1

      So Trump is protecting Hillary now. In what alt-universe do you live?

    29. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Do the numbers.,
      The warrant was issued LONG before the DNC emails.
      it was issued after Collateral Murder
      THIS IS REPUBLICAN SPEAK for "Embarrass our Bush killings and we will kill you"

    30. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My god still in denial.

    31. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 3, Informative

      You want to reward Assange for "Collateral Murder"?
      The warrant predates the DNC hack by years.
      Talk about can't keep up!!

    32. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He helped the Trump campaign by publishing evidence that Hillary was a corrupt AF Pyschopath that was making money from ISIS, had rigged the DNC to obtain the Presidential 'nomination', and was stealing political donations?

      Voters helped Trump win by not voting for Hillary?

      Welcome to the distraction show.. ;)

    33. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By who?

    34. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because that's what the Rich and Powerful want, a free-range snitch with a data collection network and a history of undermining people for the highest bidder.

      They will lock his bearded ass up and throw away the key.

    35. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shadowbans on Twitter are hiding messages

      lol you're one of those

    36. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Killall+-9+Bash · · Score: 1

      "One of those" people who know shadowbans are a thing? Yep, apparently he is.

      And apparently, you're one of *THOSE*...... (one of the astroturfing faggots who crawl out from under a rock whenever someone says something your corporate owner doesn't like)

      --
      "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
    37. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >She can run an international pedophile ring out of a pizza parlor and never even get investigated.

      Actually, under Trump the investigation into the Jeffrey Epstein child prostitution ring is being reopened. You know, Jeffrey Epstein of "lolita express" fame, which Bill Clinton was a regular flyer?

    38. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      You don't expose Hillary and just walk away.

      In case you didn't notice, Hillary is not president. In fact someone who rarely passes on a chance to publicly attack Hillary is president. Why would that person want the government to take any action against someone who did something to expose Hillary? He could have made this all a non-issue long ago if he wanted to. Instead it's likely that if Assange were brought to trial in the US, Trump would almost certainly be out of office before the trial was over.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    39. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're talking about his mental health in present tense like he hasn't been insane all along.

      BTW, if I accidentally leave my front door unlocked, someone walking through it and stealing my stuff is still stealing. Assange is and always has been a thief.

    40. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by damn_registrars · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, under Trump the investigation into the Jeffrey Epstein child prostitution ring is being reopened. You know, Jeffrey Epstein of "lolita express" fame, which Bill Clinton was a regular flyer?

      You're conveniently ignoring the fact that Epstein also has ties to Trump, and the underage girl who accused Trump of rape during the presidential campaign.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    41. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah that would require Trump to admit that he needed help - not a good idea to cross trumps demented ego.

      And when I say demented, I mean he has dementia.

      Because you're a medical doctor? Or Liberal Arts degree like Climate Expert John Kerry.

    42. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His type of "theft" is more akin to music piracy. My understanding of the original acquisition of information was that of running tor exit nodes and skimming stuff that was traveling through unencrypted.

    43. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is so tiresome. Assange has been in hiding at the Ecuadorian embassy well before Trump even announced his intention to run for president. Why was Assange hiding then? Because he knew Trump was going to win the 2016 presidential election?

      If you're going to blame this on Trump, at least have the self-awareness to also put blame on Obama for not exactly being helpful to Assange, either.

      It's not all the orange man's fault.

    44. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you're going to blame this on Trump, at least have the self-awareness to also put blame on Obama for not exactly being helpful to Assange, either.

      Would you like to see an actual PDF of the Assange indictment? Please notice the big stamp on it and the date. Who do you think was president when this indictment was filed?

      https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/11...

      Just in case you've forgotten, Assange was arrested today. Trump has been president for over two years.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    45. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck off with your twitter bullshit and take that company and it's software with you to the deepest darkest hole you can find. Maybe the corner across from your bed behind your mom's water pump?

    46. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >She can run an international pedophile ring out of a pizza parlor and never even get investigated.

      Actually, under Trump the investigation into the Jeffrey Epstein child prostitution ring is being reopened. You know, Jeffrey Epstein of "lolita express" fame, which Bill Clinton was a regular flyer?

      As was Trump....

    47. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why was Assange hiding then?

      To avoid criminal sexual assault charges in Sweden. Nothing to do with Obama/Trump/etc.

      Now, why did he continue to hide? I dunno, maybe those email messages he passed on, the ones Trump asked the Russians to get for him.

    48. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. The most insidious part of the left-wing media conspiracy is how ineffective it is. How better to hide your real power?

    49. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if he was only charged specifically for breaking into a network where secrets were kept (like a journalist would never do), and not for the publication of what was found there? How would you feel then?

    50. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by MikeKD · · Score: 1

      If you're going to blame this on Trump, at least have the self-awareness to also put blame on Obama for not exactly being helpful to Assange, either.

      Would you like to see an actual PDF of the Assange indictment? Please notice the big stamp on it and the date. Who do you think was president when this indictment was filed?

      https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/11...

      Just in case you've forgotten, Assange was arrested today. Trump has been president for over two years.

      Mannnn, you don't get just how deep the Deep StateTM really is.

    51. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It'd be a symbol that you believed a pointless show action of no meaning lead to you completely embracing a con artist scammer with no concept of law, principles, or morality, only sheer grasping avarice.

      Oh wait, it's not even true, since you are holding your breath at the stench as you've already embraced the fetid slobbering pig as hard as the supposed evangelicals.

      Praise Jesus, you are stupid!

    52. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would become an actual fan of Trump if he pardoned Assange.

      Unfortunately Assange went after CIA mole instead of a little girl so chances of that are slim.

    53. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SCOTUS ruled in New York Times Co. v. United States that the First Amendment grants journalists the right to report and print secret documents. Only the person that actually breached their duty against disclosure can be held liable for the crime. The Trump administration is going to argue that Wikileaks isn't a journalistic organization. It is going to be an uphill battle.

    54. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Or.. they're going to argue that he's guilty of conspiracy to leak secrets.

      That's a far more interesting charge.

    55. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol.. like that "treatment" won't be scopolamine?

      Why are nerds so god damned naive?

    56. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually now is the least-bad time for him to be arrested. He helped Trump's campaign, and they both share a raging hate-boner for Hillary. Perhaps he can expect a presidential pardon?

      A pardon, or an "accident" in custody.

      Either Assange and Roger Stone's stories will be carefully aligned before Stone goes to trial (and Assange will be rewarded with a pardon), or something will happen to Assange so he's unable to implicate Stone (and by extension, Trump).
       

    57. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Cederic · · Score: 1

      How exactly does that negate the point of the person to whom you replied?

      I wont expect an answer because we both know it doesn't. You're just being silly.

      The US were investigating Assange in 2011, 2012, 2014 and 2015, and that's just the explicit dates for which we have evidence. Claiming that this is specific to the current US administration is disingenuous at best, more likely just downright fucking maliciousness.

    58. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Cederic · · Score: 2

      To avoid criminal sexual assault charges in Sweden. Nothing to do with Obama/Trump/etc.

      I think the story all along has been that he was hiding from spurious charges intended to draw him back to a country from which he could be extradited to the US.

      Whether that story is true or not, it's been the story.

      Certainly the behaviour of the Swedish prosecutors has been deeply questionable, which does lend credence to the inherent paranoia behind the story, and lets face it, today's events have hardly disproven the conspiracy theory.

    59. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      You may be on to something, he's apparently completely forgotten about Wikileaks:

      https://www.vox.com/world/2019...

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    60. Re: Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You idiot. Trump loves Hillary. They are in countless pictures together. Trump even donated to Bills campaign. Don't let the political play distract you from what really goes on.

    61. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exposed what about Hillary?

      Oh right,nothing, nothing, so much nothing that even Trump is forced to scream about it while doing nothing.

      Whitewater. Pizza gate. The death list. Benghazi. Email.

      Result? Nothing. Even Trump has had more of his campaign's crimes exposed during his own presidency and he's so unguilty he is hiding his tax returns from Congressional audit and falsely claiming Mueller exonerated him.

    62. Re: Gonna Learn the Hard Way by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

      100% correct. The idea that Trump "hates" Hillary (or the Democrats) is hilarious. Trump was a big Democrat in New York City and was friends with them all. You guys are getting played.

    63. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      Spending 6 years cooped up in a single building in down town London is not exactly living the good life ...

      Could have been worse... They could have actually sent him to Ecuador. :-)

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    64. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by quax · · Score: 1

      In the Trump case we actually have video deposition of one of the Epstein girls he allegedly raped when she was underage.

      https://vimeo.com/176181706

      The case being re-opened simply attests to the prosecutorial independence of US federal attorneys. The president's powers are fortunately limited.

    65. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He has a rough beard and shouts as he is carried away by other people. Don't make a "mental case" of him.

    66. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by shanen · · Score: 1

      I wish you'd gotten more funny mods so your comment would have been more visible. Yes, there was insight underneath, but Slashdot is short on funny these days.

      Don't look at me! I never get a mod point to give.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    67. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      How exactly does that negate the point of the person to whom you replied?

      The decisions to indict, or not to indict, or to serve a warrant, or not serve a warrant, to arrest, or not to arrest in a case like this are made entirely by the Justice Department. The decision to pull the first trigger was made March 8, 2018, when the indictment was filed with the court. The decision to go forward today was made entirely by the Justice Department. As we saw recently, the Attorney General William Barr works entirely at the behest of the President (which is Trump today and was Trump back on March 8, 2018).

      Now if those facts indicate to you that what happened to day is somehow because of the Obama Administration, there are absolutely no facts that would dissuade you.

      The US were investigating Assange in 2011, 2012, 2014 and 2015, and that's just the explicit dates for which we have evidence. Claiming that this is specific to the current US administration is disingenuous at best, more likely just downright fucking maliciousness.

      Lots of things get investigated all the time. The decision to indict and arrest were made entirely, 100% by the Trump Justice Department.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    68. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Certainly the behaviour of the Swedish prosecutors has been deeply questionable, which does lend credence to the inherent paranoia behind the story, and lets face it, today's events have hardly disproven the conspiracy theory.

      If your conspiracy theory is true, then Assange could have been snatched up at any time over the past 10 years. But that is not what happened. Assange was snatched up today, and will be extradicted based on a March 8, 2018 indictment.

      If Trump doesn't sign off on this, Assange is would still be abusing his cat and rubbing feces on the wall in the Ecuadorian Embassy.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    69. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Cederic · · Score: 1

      It wasn't my conspiracy theory and since Assange has spent most of those ten years in political asylum no, he could not have been "snatched up" (without causing a major international incident).

      But that is not what happened. Assange was snatched up today

      within hours of his asylum ending, because the US already had the extradition paperwork ready, because they've been preparing it for the best part of a decade.

      Maybe Trump could have vetoed it, but he sure as fuck didn't need to initiate anything.

    70. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Cederic · · Score: 0

      The decision to pull the first trigger was made March 8, 2018, when the indictment was filed with the court

      They collated the evidence, translated it into an indictment, reviewed it, assured it would get through a Grand Jury, validated its legality and completed all of the paperwork on 8th March 2018?

      No.

      That indictment gained life months, probably years beforehand. The date it was filed in court was way way into the process.

    71. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by crashumbc · · Score: 1

      Exactly, I expect there to be a bunch of "new" charges, once US gets their hands on him.

    72. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's weird how you guys flip on this when it comes to blame Trump. Not long ago, you guys were all here talking about how it was an utter conspiracy that JA would be extradited to the USA... Where are those people now? I know quite a few people around here need to eat crow for saying that was a "conspiracy theory" the whole time.

      As for this, I'll reserve judgement until I see what Trump personally does with him. I think he's going to be a key player in the overall impeachment circus that will happen this election season. Yes, Trump will get impeached because Democrats control the House, but the vote will almost surely fail in the Senate. I suspect that Manning's pardon was to get info on what JA had, as well, FWIW. They tried to set up JA with nonsense pedo allegations too, if you remember Todd & Claire, but apparently people have short memories about this. Funny.

      As for the DoJ, there are significant elements of it that have long been against Trump because they created Crossfire Hurricane & co. to spy on Trump's campaign and their hiding the origination of that whole process claiming it was about Russia, when it happened without lawful authority because they never actually submitted unmasking requests and claim that certain communications were simply by-catch when spying on Russia, which is silly because if that were true, they should have had to submit an unmasking request and this does not exist and has not been produced.

      So we'll see who controls this prosecution, etc. I suspect the timing of this is to put Trump in a bind because if he pardons him, they claim Russia/obstruction/whatever for their impeachment circus and if he doesn't, they control the narrative about JA's activities. They grabbed Trump's lawyer and got basically nothing, despite tipping off CNN to watch, so they're desperate for ammo right now.

    73. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh god.. Are you in for a very rued awakening should you ever actually see the truth.

      Remember the "I had my wires tapped" Trump comment? Remember laughing at him? Well, you where wrong, the people who told you it was stupid where wrong. He was right, we have enough facts and sworn testimony to KNOW that the Trump campaign was under surveillance, lots of surveillance...

      And that's just the start of this whole mess... I fully suspect that eventually we are going to discover that this whole THING was based on a lie, the Mueller's report DOES clear Trump and his associates (as the AG says in his summary letter.)

      So keep believing your lie... Hold on tight.. Just be ready with the medication when you simply cannot keep the ruse going... Reality can be a harsh teacher and it's coming...

    74. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because obviously you have no clue what the right actually votes for. Please, try and keep it that way. The longer you stay in the dark the longer the rest of us get to keep moving forward.

    75. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      They collated the evidence, translated it into an indictment, reviewed it, assured it would get through a Grand Jury, validated its legality and completed all of the paperwork on 8th March 2018?

      No.

      In March, 2018, Donald Trump had been president for over a year.

      Yes.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    76. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's been living in a 300 square foot "office" with a shared bathroom and a minimal kitchen for 6 years. He's been slowly becoming more and more of a PIA to his hosts over the last few years and has recently made some nasty public and political statements making himself a general pest to the country that offered him sanctuary. The current president of Ecuador called him a pebble in his shoe as a result.. So they finally got tired of the mess he was making and had the police remove him..

      IF he was ever in his right mind, it's obvious he's been in a long slow decline. If he's in his right mind now, I'd consider him extremely stupid. It was obvious that they where getting ready to toss him out if he didn't follow the rules they gave him, well it was his choice to not be quiet, so they cut him loose. I think it's likely he is not fully in his right mind, that the situation he's been in for 6 years took it's toll. I also think he was stupid for being a PIA to his hosts. Maybe he's just that stupid, but somehow, I don't believe that of him.

    77. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      within hours of his asylum ending, because the US already had the extradition paperwork ready, because they've been preparing it for the best part of a decade.

      Maybe Trump could have vetoed it, but he sure as fuck didn't need to initiate anything.

      Donald Trump is now 100% in charge of the Justice Department. Has been for two years and two months. He knew this was happening and he signed off.

      What happened today could have happened any time over the past 10 years. But it happened today. You want to go back in time and somehow blame Obama because Trump can do no wrong. I admire your loyalty to the man, but history has shown loyalty to Donald Trump is never rewarded and ultimately diminishes you.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    78. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Cederic · · Score: 0

      Donald Trump is now 100% in charge of the Justice Department

      Sure. That's why the US justice administration have spent the last two years trying to prove he illegally colluded with Russia.

      Get a fucking grip.

      You want to go back in time and somehow blame Obama because Trump can do no wrong.

      You're the person trying to pin this all to a single US president. I haven't even fucking mentioned Obama. Just what the fuck is so wrong with you that you have to pretend people said shit in order to justify your own delusions.

      Seek medical help.

    79. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, that Hillary, controlling the DoJ to get back at her personal enemies. If only the Attorney General could be appointed by someone else.

    80. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama could have pardoned Assange, like he could have pardoned Snowden. He chose not to do either.

      So yes, we can blame him too.

    81. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      competence

      Queen Competence got her ass handed to her by a bombastic, loud-mouthed reality TV star.

      Such competence.

    82. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by strikethree · · Score: 1

      ... and evidently Hillary is in charge of every intelligence agency and enforcement organization, even while not actually holding public office.

      You and the conspiracy theorists can continue arguing about whatever conspiracy you all are arguing about... but what I quoted caught my eye:

      The Kennedy and Bush dynasties both did what you claim and the Clinton dynasty was aiming for the same. The Clintons did not see the same success as the Kennedy and Bush dynasties, but make no mistake, the Clintons had (!!!) very deep control.

      So carry on with whatever was being argued about. That is all that I wanted to make note of.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    83. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by BringsApples · · Score: 1

      You know, I don't understand why more extreme right wing people didn't vote for Hillary

      Because they didn't vote for anyone?

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    84. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You somehow connected "the extreme right wing" and "someone all about authority". Are you European or something?
      That's not the way the American political spectrum works.

    85. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He would actually have to be convicted of something in order to be pardoned. The US doesn't have much to charge him with let alone convict him. Receiving stolen property is one possibility. The only real charge is that he assisted Manning in circumventing a password protected site so Manning could gain access to more classified information. Evidently the government has evidence related to this charge because it was disclosed in Manning's court martial. The smart move would be for the US to do nothing. Don't grant Assange the attention which he craves.

    86. Re: Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't believe that shit about him pissing his host. Ecuador has been veering towards Washington for some time in much bigger issues than this one

    87. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      The first Democrat implicated by the Mueller report, Greg Craig, was just indicted today.

      The Mueller report is going to explode in the Dem's face.

      And if they choose to prosecute Assange to find out where the 'DNC Emails' came from, we'll all find out. It might not have been Seth Rich, but it likely wasn't hacking by "the Russians."

    88. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They typically say they want a strong president, and evidently Hillary is in charge of every intelligence agency and enforcement organization, even while not actually holding public office.

      Extreme right wingers don't want a strong president for just no reason at all. They want a strong president that ALSO wants to enact the policies that they want.

      For example, leftists often rail against fascists (I am not implying that fascism is right-wing, but let's leave this rabbit hole aside for now). Yet what is it that leftists want "their guy" or "their gal" to do once in office? Silence all criticism and confiscate property. Sounds awfully fascistic doesn't it? That's because leftists despise Hitler because Hitler didn't give them the goods and enacted policies that leftists disagree with.

      See, left vs. right isn't good vs. evil nor vice versa.
      Really what you're seeing is an argument between authoritarian ass holes over who should be the one with power that is making everyone else's lives miserable.
      I say "a pox on both their houses and sic semper tyrannis"

    89. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She exposed herself, (that's a mental picture I wish I hadn't seen)
      Misogyny alive and well as usual in the technical community. You sound like your boy Trump, insulting a woman's appearance is your first line of attack.

      Working in IT for many years and being the only female in a team of 50 employees I heard a lot of insults about women and their appearance. Sometimes they were just as insulting talking about how sexy women were.

      Here's a news flash: The vast majority of the guys in the technical workforce are not fit and would likely not look very pretty in a speedo on the beach. And even if they got in shape the vast majority of them are still unattractive (except maybe a few sales reps here and there). An in any event Hillary is in her 70's, why would you speak this way of any older lady who has a lifetime of accomplishments? Would you want someone saying that about your mom or grandmother? How about yourself bobbied, how do you think you'll look at 70?

      I have often wondered if these men have mirrors at their houses, walking around looking like that how in the world do they ever make snide remarks about women. Trump first in line as the leader of funny looking and flabby.

    90. Re: Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Jesus+H+Rolle · · Score: 1

      He would actually have to be convicted of something in order to be pardoned.

      And what was Nixon convicted of?

    91. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just because Hillary was running the vast portfoilio of the Deep State and had sworn oaths of fealty from all of the 17 IC fiefdoms, that does not mean she was good at managing the Eye of Sauron. Crooked Hillary helped to create, fund and arm ISIS in Benghazi and in Syria. Crooked Hillary's reckless enthusiasm for coup d'tat, such as in Libya, gave us the return of human slavery, with African slaves now for sale in Libya for $175. Crooked Hillary also was such a bungler that she repeatedly opened herself up to blackmail and infiltration by leaving her unpatched un-updated Windows 2008 email server naked on the Internet for any State level hackers to totally pwn. Crooked Hillary was also a fool for surrounding herself with an entourage of corrupt sychophants who took every opportunity to fatten their own pockets and skim off the top by schmoozing shady deals with Russian oligarchs who are banned by State from getting an entry visa into the US (*cough cough* Podesta and Joule energy). if Crooked Hillary was such a wise spymaster, then why was she basically setting herself up to be blackmailed by Putin by doing so many illegal under the table financial deals with Russian oligarchs? this only scratches the surface of Crooked Hillary's foibles.

      Crooked Hillary lost because once Podesta's emails leaked, and there were 27 "dig threads" on Reddit where the Great Internet Hive Mind scoured every deplorable thing Podesta and her viper's nest were doing, then the people saw how much of a disaster she would be as President and that cost her the election.

    92. Re: Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kind of like M$ chronic psychopathy.

    93. Re: Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its possible, although more likely they share a temporary common interest. Having said that, Assange did used to host a show on Russia Today.

    94. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhg. The refer to manning as "her" throughout the document.

    95. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by tbannist · · Score: 1

      You have to remember that with Trump it's not "what did you do for me" that he cares about, it's "what can you do for me now" and it's likely that Trump sees Assange being most useful, now, as a criminal that Trump brought to justice. Because that's how Trump intends to use him, that means that Trump has never heard of Wikileaks. That's very important because Trump is totally innocent (no collusion!) and has never associated with any criminals, ever, and anyone who says otherwise is a lying Democrat or part of the lying media, and probably also an enemy of the people of the United States of Trump... Or at least that's what Trump will be telling anyone who will listen.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    96. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Mannnn, you don't get just how deep the Deep StateTM really is.

      I knew it. The Deep State conspiracy against Donald Trump is so deep and vast, that even Donald Trump is part of the conspiracy! Trust no one!

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    97. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Certainly the behaviour of the Swedish prosecutors has been deeply questionable, which does lend credence to the inherent paranoia behind the story, and lets face it, today's events have hardly disproven the conspiracy theory.

      The most surprising thing about this story is that the warrant was issued after Trump took office, which seems to indicate that either Obama's Justice Department was not trying to extradite Assange, or that Trump's Justice Department didn't like something about the Obama era sealed warrant against Assange and deliberately replaced it with a different warrant.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    98. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Cederic · · Score: 1

      My cynical interpretation is that there are multiple warrants. This one was created and used as one or more of the others could result in a sentence for which the UK would have to refuse to extradite.

    99. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Technically true, but it's always been dubious to pardon someone who hasn't even been indicted. Yes, it's been done - Ford's pardon of Nixon famously was vague enough to cover acts outside of those he was being investigated for - but even then that was hardly an uncontroversial pardon.

      For the longest time it hasn't even been clear that Assange was likely to be guilty of anything. As it was, the fact the DoJ didn't indict during the Obama regime suggests that while they were investigating him, they didn't have anything concrete enough, and why should Obama pardon someone under those circumstances?

      The case for pardoning Snowden is more clear cut. But I respect Obama's decision not to, even if I'm not comfortable with it.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    100. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering that the US Scale of Right versus Left is Authoritarianism versus Freedom, that's exactly why she would never appeal to anyone on the far right.

      You're confusing the European scale which give a right versus left to determine which flavor of totalitarianism you prefer.

    101. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The case being re-opened simply attests to the prosecutorial independence of US federal attorneys.

      Oh yeah, because it's very likely that some prosecutor independently went "I just found some old documents about some person named Trump or something like that, and it looks like the case was closed prematurely", especially with all the evidence you posted of it being an independent decision.

      Absolutely no chance that it could be an attempt by someone in political power to find dirt on a president.

    102. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know this is a shitpost and you're taking the piss out of conspiracy idiots, but I've just got to point out that the right wants the mythical strong anti-government president. That is, a president who somehow managed to climb the political ladder while being in favor of shrinking government (good luck!). This is a huge reason why people went crazy over Trump. He came out of nowhere and seemed to be signaling he thought the government was hot garbage basically all around. That's a popular sentiment in public, but not in government for obvious reasons. Unfortunately it turns out he's really just dumb and there was no 4d chess in play.

      Still better than Hillary though. Come on, admit it: She's pretty deplorable.

    103. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would become an actual fan of Trump if he pardoned Assange. I'm not holding my breath, mind you, but it would be a heck of a symbol that the US still has some tenuous hold on the rule of law.

      If he had pulled this crap during World War II, he would have already been stood up in front of a firing squad.

    104. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by quax · · Score: 1

      It was re-opened because "Federal prosecutors, under former Miami U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta, broke the law when they concealed a plea agreement from more than 30 underage victims who had been sexually abused by wealthy New York hedge fund manager Jeffrey Epstein, .."

      https://www.miamiherald.com/ne...

      But you will of course chose to believe whatever you want.

    105. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump's name appeared on the flight logs of that plane almost 3x as many times as Bill Clinton's. The facts look like Trump spent several months worth of weekends on Epstein's private island, which also coincides with the staggering amount of young children who have accused him of raping them.

    106. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The question is -- how and wherefrom did Assange obtain the knowledge to make a credible try at guessing the password for something very sensitive? In my view, that could not have happened without the help of a state actor.

    107. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The DOJ seems to have had some concrete stuff for quite some time, but Assange was holed up in the Equadorean embassy, making it impossible to catch him and release relevant information. Snowden got asylum from Russia. The DOJ and the agencies do not have to release information about any investigations, and in order to protect any and all relevant investigations, the public should not know until Assange is brought to justice, and until the courts are in actual session. The pardon happens after a conviction, so this is why President Obama never pardoned Assange or Snowden. In my book, Assange does not deserve a pardon, but Snowden does.

    108. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not like the UK, Equador, and Australia really want him back. And good riddance, too, if he's extradited.

    109. Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump does what he is told.

      By who?

      Russia.

      But the DOJ is independent of Trump, and it's possible, that Trump might not have known, that there's an indictment and an extradition request waiting for Assange. Trump does not have to sign off on these things, and no president is required to.

  2. Silver lining by Joce640k · · Score: 2, Insightful

    At least Hillary didn't make president. She would have hung, drawn and quartered him.

    Maybe the USA has had time to cool off. Me? I'm betting he'll be over there within three months.

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:Silver lining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Maybe the USA has had time to cool off. Me? I'm betting he'll be over there within three months.

      I doubt it. Notice the timing of this: this is happening immediately after the Mueller Report completely exonerated Trump of having any ties to Russia. The US Deep State is still trying their hardest to find some reason to explain why Trump's election was "invalid" due to "Russian interference" and now that they can't blame Trump directly, they're moving on to blaming anyone they possibly can. Since Wikileaks provided the emails that proved that the Democratic primaries were rigged for Hillary, that means that they're the next target in the absurd "Russian rigged the election" conspiracy theory.

      (And, yes, I'm aware that the Mueller report did "not exonerate" the president of other charges unrelated to Russia. But unlike people who like to quote just that phrase, I can understand context, and know that it's not referring to the Russia charges and that it's also saying that there was no evidence discovered to prove the charges it was related to.)

    2. Re:Silver lining by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Ecuador had wanted to get rid of him since at least last summer. This has been coming for months.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:Silver lining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is only so much workload the corrupt class can tackle at one time. Perhaps Assange was put on the back-burner while trying to execute Russiagate. Now that Russiagate has turned into an abject failure for them, it's time for round two.

    4. Re:Silver lining by tigersha · · Score: 1

      > She would have hung, drawn and quartered him.

      Good. He deserves that, but it would be faster to just shoot the bastard.

      --
      The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
    5. Re:Silver lining by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Maybe the USA has had time to cool off. Me? I'm betting he'll be over there within three months.

      I doubt it.

      Guess what? It's only been hours and he's already been arrested "on behalf of the United States", extradition warrant and everything.

      He didn't even have to pass through Sweden first.

      http://news.met.police.uk/news...

      PS: Has he committed any crimes in the USA?

      (apart from embarrassing them)

      --
      No sig today...
    6. Re:Silver lining by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Look, the more you have to make allowances for facts in your conspiracy theory, the more you have to bend the theory and invent even more motivations for the Illuminati or whatever imagined or semi-imagined evil ruling class you care to invoke, the more ridiculous the conspiracy theory gets.

      The fact is that Assange had worn out his welcome, his behavior since 2016, even under the previous Ecuadorian government, was becoming egregious. If he was going out of his way to piss off the government that offered him asylum, with a new governing party in power, how could he expect any other result. And I imagine embassy staff were just bloody tired of the guy. Good grief, when they pulled him out, he looked like Howard Hughes.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    7. Re:Silver lining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's more useful to gather information from him first.

  3. I hope they just let him go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The worst thing that could happen to him now is that the US doesn't try to extradite him and England only questions him and lets him go. He'll have thrown away 7 years of his life voluntarily and look like a narcissistic idiot (more so than he already does).

    1. Re:I hope they just let him go by jeremyp · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's not an impossible scenario. There's currently no European arrest warrant outstanding for him or extradition request from the USA, so it depends on whether the Crown Prosecution Service can be bothered to prosecute him for skipping bail.

      Having said that, don't forget that for a proportion of the seven years he spent in the Ecuador embassy, he would have been sent to Sweden to face the rape accusations. So from his point of view, it may not have been time wasted if he thought he would be found guilty.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    2. Re:I hope they just let him go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With the US's history of torture of POWs and journalists, I hope he can make a successful appeal to the UN human rights commission.

    3. Re:I hope they just let him go by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Hard to say if the CPS will go after him. On the one hand it would open up another can of worms for them, with Assange and Wikileaks going all out to show that he was at risk by releasing potentially sensitive information to use as evidence. There is also a good chance it wouldn't go anywhere - his legal team would argue that he already lost the bail money and spend 7 years in effective incarceration, so even if convicted no further punishment is merited.

      On the other hand, he humiliated the government and caused it to waste many millions on policing outside the embassy. It's also likely that the US will want to get hold of him (they accidentally confirmed that there is an active prosecution) so there will be pressure from across the pond.

      I imagine he has thought all this through and probably has some kind of insurance policy, something he can use as leverage if it goes badly.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:I hope they just let him go by Cederic · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Hard to say if the CPS will go after him. On the one hand it would open up another can of worms for them, with Assange and Wikileaks going all out to show that he was at risk by releasing potentially sensitive information to use as evidence. There is also a good chance it wouldn't go anywhere - his legal team would argue that he already lost the bail money and spend 7 years in effective incarceration, so even if convicted no further punishment is merited.

      Given someone was today given six months for skipping bail for a grand total of ten months I think the CPS will very much be expected to prosecuted.

      That's not even factoring in that his arrest is explicitly _for_ skipping bail.

    5. Re:I hope they just let him go by Zocalo · · Score: 2

      In the scheme of things, the maximum penalties for skipping bail are not that high in the UK (a few years in jail and a fine), although I guess the CPS could also throw in a few extra bits and pieces like wasting police time for the overt police presence that the Met maintained outside the embassy if they really wanted to. My guess is that the CPS will want to move on this quickly to show that justice has been done, so if the judge makes allowances for his voluntary "house arrest" he could potentially get a fine and be free and clear (if somewhat poorer) within weeks. If the US really is interested in extradition, I they're almost certainly aware of that possibility and will get the necessary paperwork filed PDQ so he doesn't get a chance to flee.

      Or not, in which case we'll no doubt get Assange and Wikileaks spokespeople going nuts about how he's about to be black-bagged...

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    6. Re:I hope they just let him go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting idea.

      Perhaps Trump can announce what a wonderful guy he is, and thank him for getting him elected? Nah, he'll probably put him in a jail for immigrants, somewhere near Texas.

      After all, Assange did the unforgivable crime of letting US citizens know what their government was doing!

    7. Re:I hope they just let him go by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      He'll have thrown away 7 years of his life voluntarily and look like a narcissistic idiot (more so than he already does).

      Narcissist's aren't that courageous, nor do they have values.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    8. Re:I hope they just let him go by nojayuk · · Score: 5, Interesting

      it depends on whether the Crown Prosecution Service can be bothered to prosecute him for skipping bail.

      Someone who skipped bail a few months back and fled abroad has returned to the UK voluntarily, saying he panicked and made a mistake and apologised in court for absconding. He got a sentence of six months for the bail offence added to his in-absentia sentence for manslaughter today.

      Assange has been "on the run" for seven years after skipping bail and had to be dragged kicking and protesting from his hidey-hole and it's unlikely he will apologise in court for skipping bail. I don't see the Crown Prosecution Service thinking "well, he's not worth the effort of prosecuting for absconding while bailed" in those circumstances.

      It's pretty rare for the legal establishment to disregard bail offences as it might encourage others to similarly offend, thinking "I can skip bail and nothing will happen to me."

    9. Re:I hope they just let him go by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      That's not how the CPS works. They have to decide if the prosecution is in the public interest, which means it must lead to some outcome that if beneficial for the public. Given that the maximum sentence would be 12 months, serving 6 with good behaviour, and given that his legal team would argue he has been effectively incarcerated for 7 years it's unlikely that he would actually go to jail, so there isn't much point.

      It would just be a waste of time and money. If they do proceed it will be with additional charges, but since the EU arrest warrant has expired they would have to find something else.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    10. Re:I hope they just let him go by Dog-Cow · · Score: 3, Informative

      If I were a judge and someone tried to convince me that a criminal was already incarcerated because he chose to hide, I'd have the guy committed due to extreme stupidity.

    11. Re:I hope they just let him go by Archtech · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Then in a month or two he will be killed in a regrettable car accident, or suffer a heart attack...

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    12. Re:I hope they just let him go by Archtech · · Score: 0

      It's revealing that, while slavishly echoing the line of the powers that be, you still don't dare admit your identity.

      Bullies, as they say, are usually cowards.

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    13. Re:I hope they just let him go by Archtech · · Score: 1

      That's not how the CPS works. They have to decide if the prosecution is in the public interest, which means it must lead to some outcome that if beneficial for the public. Given that the maximum sentence would be 12 months, serving 6 with good behaviour, and given that his legal team would argue he has been effectively incarcerated for 7 years it's unlikely that he would actually go to jail, so there isn't much point.

      It would just be a waste of time and money. If they do proceed it will be with additional charges, but since the EU arrest warrant has expired they would have to find something else.

      Unfortunately, regardless of their official duties, the CPS - like everyone else in government - do what they are told. Just as the so-called "intelligence services" eventually told Tony Blair what he ordered them to tell him: that Iraq had WMD.

      Those who hold the real power are very largely driven by instincts and emotions that would shame an alpha chimpanzee. Hatred of anyone who crosses them, and insensate lust for the most vicious revenge, are prominent in that package.

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    14. Re: I hope they just let him go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That person had actually been convicted of a very serious offence in the UK involving a death.

      Assange hasn't been convicted of anything and the Swedish case went nowhere.

    15. Re:I hope they just let him go by Archtech · · Score: 1

      With the US's history of torture of POWs and journalists, I hope he can make a successful appeal to the UN human rights commission.

      Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

      You said "UN" and suggested that it might have some influence on the US government.

      Hell, it doesn't even have any influence with the UK government.

      https://news.un.org/en/story/2...

      https://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsE...

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    16. Re:I hope they just let him go by dwillden · · Score: 1

      The US has no claim for him. We don't torture POW's or journalists. And he's not a POW anyway. He has no cause to appeal to the UN human rights commission for his arrest for skipping bail while awaiting an extradition hearing regarding his warrant of arrest for rape in Sweden.

      The US has zero claim to extradite him. He has broken no US law that he could be subject to.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    17. Re:I hope they just let him go by Archtech · · Score: 0

      Narcissist's aren't that courageous, nor do they have values.

      There is not the slightest evidence that Assange is a narcissist.

      And if there were, it would not have the slightest bearing on his public behaviour.

      Your remark is the lowest kind of ad hominem attack.

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    18. Re:I hope they just let him go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      orly? ja das ist sehr gut herr kommandant!

    19. Re:I hope they just let him go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. Also there has been a costly policing situation outside the embassy as a result of his hiding away in there for the past seven years. That is British taxpayers' money, it's understandable that there will be a penalty for this whole situation.

      However it would be funny if after all this, he was just let go with a suspended sentence and community service.

    20. Re:I hope they just let him go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With the US's history of torture of POWs and journalists, I hope he can make a successful appeal to the UN human rights commission.

      Just because Sweden accused Assange of rape is no reason to send him to the bunch of human-rights abusers and rapist that compose the UN.

      Your naivete is totes adorbs.

    21. Re: I hope they just let him go by nojayuk · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The person facing a manslaughter charge left the country before the case came to trial, absconding while on bail. After he returned voluntarily to the UK he pled guilty to absconding while on bail and received a 6-month sentence for that particular offence, mitigated by his voluntary return to custody, pleading guilty to absconding and apologising for absconding in the first place.

      The British judicial system has specified tariffs for sentencing including reduction in sentences for pleading guilty, showing remorse and other factors. I can't really see Julian Assange getting treated as lightly in his case given he was expelled from the Embassy but had to be taken from there by British police since he wouldn't leave voluntarily. I don't expect him to plead guilty to absconding since he's JULIAN ASSANGE! after all and as for showing remorse for absconding well...

      The severity of the crime they are originally charged with does not affect whether the offence of absconding while on bail should be prosecuted or not. It's a separate offence that is taken seriously by the British judicial system.

    22. Re:I hope they just let him go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The U.S. revealed they want to get hold of him" .... after years of Amimojo and pals denying that was the case, claiming Assange was a sexual predator who was evading justice and using his paranoia about U.S. extradition as a shield.

    23. Re:I hope they just let him go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As said above, the US has an extradition request in place. Confirmed by the Metropolitan police.

    24. Re:I hope they just let him go by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's not how UK courts work.

      For a start the maximum sentence is 12 months. To get that the prosecution would have to show that he was acting purely maliciously, without any good reason at all. Since he now has irrefutable evidence that cases are pending against him in the US, and that the US does treat people accused/convicted of similar crimes by standards that would be illegal in the UK (e.g. Chelsea Manning), it's unlikely that they would be able to get the maximum sentence.

      That evidence would also add weight to the argument that he was effectively incarcerated for 7 years, being unable to leave for at least part of it while Sweden was still seeking extradition.

      So if convicted he would probably get 6 months maximum, of which he would likely serve half with good behaviour, and from which time already served awaiting trial would be deducted. Given that he would likely spend more than 3 months locked up simply awaiting trial, in practice he would walk free immediately.

      So the CPS has to ask if it is worth all the expense of a prosecution, or find additional stuff to charge him with.

      Of course they could decide to prosecute anyway, because he upset a lot of people and cost the government many millions of Pounds, but it would likely descend into farce with Assange coming off better in the end.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    25. Re:I hope they just let him go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand I wonder why the Crown Prosecution Service would put so much diligence and effort into this. It's basic contempt, not manslaughter. The CPS are very worked up about the opportunity to give a slap on the wrist.

    26. Re:I hope they just let him go by bobbied · · Score: 2

      Well Um.. No US law he's subject to? Not so fast there legal mind.

      Possession is 9/10ths of the law, and in this case IF he gets extradited, he'd then face the music in a US court on US soil, where he's obviously subject to US law.

      To be clear, the argument you are making is two fold. First that he's not a US citizen and not subject to US law and Second that he wasn't on US soil or sovereign territory and therefore not subject to US law enforcement's authority. These are pretty thin arguments to make in a US court. How do you think that will turn out?

      So IF he gets extradited (and that is a very open question) he's going to face trial in the USA unless he takes a plea deal. I expect him to plea in exchange for giving up his sources myself, which is really what the USA is after here. Julian is pretty much worthless at this point, except for what he may know about who's leaking stuff to him.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    27. Re:I hope they just let him go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      UK prosecution doesn't care about the public interest. They're nothing if not vindictive, petty and tyrannical.

      They prosecuted a comedian for making fun of Nazis using his pug. They threatened his lawyer because he counseled him regarding an appeal.

      They will throw everything at Assange just because they can.

    28. Re:I hope they just let him go by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Its Amijojo, if that was the case he would be serving a life sentence.

    29. Re:I hope they just let him go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You keep on going how he's going to be prosecuted, but for what? Seriously. Can you name a US law he broke? Distributing classified information is only illegal if you've signed agreements with the US government saying you won't distribute it. And the only people who tend to sign that are people applying for government clearances. He doesn't hold a clearance with the US government to my knowledge.

    30. Re:I hope they just let him go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the first news article I found after this one...

      Julian Assange, 47, (03.07.71) has today, Thursday 11 April, been further arrested on behalf of the United States authorities, at 10:53hrs after his arrival at a central London police station. This is an extradition warrant under Section 73 of the Extradition Act. He will appear in custody at Westminster Magistrates' Court later today (Thursday, 11 April).

    31. Re:I hope they just let him go by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It looks like the US has put in an extradition request for hacking, and they arrested him on that basis rather than for skipping bail.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    32. Re:I hope they just let him go by nojayuk · · Score: 2

      A lot of people get bailed before their day in court. I will say right now that at the time Julian Assange was given bail he was not facing criminal prosecution by the UK legal system, he was the subject of a European Arrest Warrant which is something different. Until the legal challenges to the EAW were done with he was bailed on the understanding that he would do a bunch of things like report to a police station, surrender his passport, attend any obligatory legal proceedings in person etc. It would have been explained to him before he was bailed that a breach of these conditions was in itself a criminal offence. Failure to accept these conditions would mean he would be held in a remand centre.

      Very very few people who are bailed run away and fail to appear in court, in part because they know that the consequences are that they will be regarded as a fugitive and subject to penalties when and if they are caught or even if they return voluntarily.

      Absconding from bail is a remarkably easy crime to prosecute, the conditions to meet a reasonable expectation of finding the person charged guilty are usually self-evident. There's no forensic evidence needed, no eye-witness testimony, recovery of stolen property etc. Anyone facing such a charge usually pleads guilty because the case is open-and-shut.

      About the only way out would be to present evidence of kidnapping or being forced to skip bail by others by threats or duress or maybe diminished responsibility i.e. they didn't understand what they needed to do under the conditions of bail. I can't see any of those conditions applying in Julian Assange's case.

    33. Re:I hope they just let him go by Higaran · · Score: 1

      No he did not rob us of the first female president. I was totally behind Obama, he was a great president and a great man, but Hillary has a history of being a lying cheating sack of garbage. She can't see anything other than the fattening of her own wallet and being in the history books.

    34. Re:I hope they just let him go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did think it kind-of odd that rape allegations were suddenly concocted against him. Presumably his accusers are well know in the intelligence community. Regardless I don't think he had any right to publish the things he did. I don't think one man should take it upon himself to make these judgements. I feel the same about the Cambridge spies, taking it upon themselves to give our secrets to the Soviets. They had no right.

    35. Re:I hope they just let him go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No you wouldn't. Judges, thankfully, don't have that kind of power.

    36. Re:I hope they just let him go by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      Assange had no good reason. He simply wanted to avoid investigation for rape in Sweden.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    37. Re:I hope they just let him go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks :)

    38. Re:I hope they just let him go by Xylantiel · · Score: 1

      They don't even have to let him go to make him look like an idiot. It's not like nobody else ever fled bail for 7 years and then been caught. If they just give him a sentence in line with other cases and move on, it will enough to show that the whole charade was pointless from the start.

    39. Re:I hope they just let him go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're going to write narcissist's, why don't you also write courageou's or value's?

      After all, those "s"es deserve the same apostrophe, right?

    40. Re:I hope they just let him go by Zocalo · · Score: 2

      AFAICT, he's been arrested twice today (so far at least). The Met initially arrested him in the Embassy for skipping bail, then they arrested him again in response to the suspiciously quick receipt of the US' extradition request - I know they supposedly had a prosecution file on him ready to go, but it was barely an hour! There was some talk of the Swedes re-opening their cases too, so if they're as far in the loop as the US seems to have been they'll be making any extradition requests shortly and he might be getting arrested for a third time before the day is out.

      "Hacking" is an interesting angle though (I was expecting at least some kind of espionage rap on the sheet, but maybe that's in there too?); pretty sure there are no US states with a death penalty for hacking so it's going to be hard to fight extradition on those grounds, but asperger's and similar mental issues have successfully been used to avoid extradition to the US on hacking charges before, so I expect we'll be hearing a lot more about Assange's supposed mental state in the next few months, assuming his ego will allow his lawyers to make the claim anyway.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    41. Re:I hope they just let him go by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I seems that the US approached Ecuador, as Ecuador demanded a guarantee that Assange would not be tortured or murdered before inviting the police in.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    42. Re:I hope they just let him go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That evidence would also add weight to the argument that he was effectively incarcerated for 7 years

      That argument wouldn't fly in court. Assange was on the run for 7 years; he hasn't served any prison time for which he could get credit.

    43. Re:I hope they just let him go by Rolgar · · Score: 0

      There was probably no chance the Obama administration would have let him walk. Trump, on the other hand, hasn't been hit by any big wikileaks yet as big as Hillary's emails. Maybe he'll let him go on account of helping keep Hillary out of office. Of course, how angry would the MSM get if Trump did let Assange go because of that. Would it be considered corruption?

    44. Re:I hope they just let him go by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      He is now facing extradition to the US, which would likely result in torture at the very least. This proves his fears to have been founded.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    45. Re:I hope they just let him go by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Informative

      As I understand, he can't really be prosecuted for espionage, and the bar for that charge is far higher than what is publicly known about Assange's activities. The short version is that he's a journalist, and not a US citizen, so it's expected that he'd try to publish American secrets.

      Where he runs afoul of the CFAA is that he apparently offered to help. Journalists can't do that. As a journalist, Assange must be a passive observer of the world, publishing information given to him. He shouldn't have any active role in obtaining the information. However, it looks like he crossed that line, and he's getting hit for it.

      Now, this isn't to say that journalists can't ever have an active role... but they do so as citizens, not journalists. They can use FOIA to force the release of government information, or they can go out and solicit interviews. They can pay sources for information, or participate in illegal activities... but they do all of that as private citizens, and they face all the same consequences as anyone else that does so. Anyone who offers to help crack a password to a system they aren't authorized to access would face the same charges that Assange does, journalist or not.

      That's important, because it means this case isn't an attack on free press, or political retribution, or any kind of threat to rule-following journalists. It's a hacker-for-hire getting caught for hacking, and nothing more.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    46. Re:I hope they just let him go by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Informative

      Apparently, he offered to crack a password to a computer system, knowing that he's be aiding unauthorized access. That's a crime.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    47. Re:I hope they just let him go by Zocalo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Here's the statement from the US DoJ. "Conspiracy to commit computer intrusion for agreeing to break a password to a classified U.S. government computer" (SIPRNet) and a bit about helping/encouraging Manning to undertake the same, apparently. The usual boilerplate about "innocent until proven guilty" is in there, of course, but also the maximum sentence they are pushing for, which seems like a rather light five years before any time off for good behaviour and other considerations.

      That's not to say they won't add extra charges (or arrange an "accident", if that's your view) between now and any potential trial, but that's still considerably less than I would have expected as a starting point given all the FUD from Assange and his supporters, especially given the charges and potential sentences in prior hacking cases like Gary McKinnon and Lauri Love, or the on-going case of Marcus Hutchins. Conspiring rather than actually doing makes quite a difference, it seems.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    48. Re:I hope they just let him go by houghi · · Score: 1

      These are pretty thin arguments to make in a US court.

      That is a problem with US court.
      Can China ask for people to be extradited from the US because they posted something they did not like it and that it is, according to them, a security risk of National Importance? Probably not, right?

      And even if he does not has any extra infomation, he will be used as an example to deter others.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    49. Re:I hope they just let him go by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      His other arguments against extradition will be that he has little prospect of a fair trial and faces torture.

      The US secret court system can be argued to prevent a fair trial. It's probably a weak argument, the UK tends to recognize other countries doing that because the UK does it too.

      The prospect of torture is more realistic. The US has Guantanamo, it has indefinite solitary confinement, and Assange may have medical issues that he could argue would not be properly treated.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    50. Re: I hope they just let him go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really are Debbie Downer's minion, aren't you? Are you one of her sex slaves as well?

    51. Re:I hope they just let him go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He has actually just been found guilty of skipping bail.

    52. Re:I hope they just let him go by LaminatorX · · Score: 0

      The UK can't legally extradite someone to a place where they might reasonably face execution, such as (to pick a totally random example) handing a person accused of espionage over to the United States.

      Not only does Sweden have no such rule, but it has a history of accommodating "extraordinary rendition" operations by the US.

      Whether he was right about it or not, Assange (and the Ecuadorians) certainly believed that to be the reason for the conspicuous escalation of his criminal investigation by the Swedes.

      Even taking a laudable I-believe-the-accusers posture there despite counter-intelligence operations against Assange being a thing, I can only wish that we lived in a world where date-rape investigations were pursued so vigorously against people who haven't antagonized a superpower.

    53. Re:I hope they just let him go by Frobnicator · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He's not a US citizen. In the 1990s he was convicted of some computer crimes in Australia (where he is from) but he served his time.

      When this started there were accusations of rape, which is a crime most of the world is willing to extradite for. To rape someone you actually need to be there. But now there are charges for what, and where was he?

      If he were a US citizen being charged for violating US law while abroad, I could understand the extradition. But here, he's an Australian citizen being extradited for so far unspecified crimes committed against a country he apparently wasn't in and isn't a citizen of.

      Imagine if the US turned over to China everybody who spoke ill of the Chinese government, or shipped off to North Korea the people who released documents that North Korea deemed offensive. Unless there are some other charges, that's what I see as the equivalent. From what I've read, his only ties to the US are that he offended politicians there, and published documents the government (which was a foreign government for him) didn't want published.

      --
      //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
    54. Re:I hope they just let him go by bobbied · · Score: 1

      His other arguments against extradition will be that he has little prospect of a fair trial and faces torture.

      The US secret court system can be argued to prevent a fair trial. It's probably a weak argument, the UK tends to recognize other countries doing that because the UK does it too.

      The prospect of torture is more realistic. The US has Guantanamo, it has indefinite solitary confinement, and Assange may have medical issues that he could argue would not be properly treated.

      You cannot seriously think that they'd extradite him to Gitmo? Now, that's just plain crazy talk there.. Seriously... If the USA intends to send him there, why bother with the extradition process? Just mount a "special rendition" operation once the UK sets him free, extract as much useful information as you can though any means necessary in some country where nobody would ask questions and do this whole thing you imagine off the books, then dump him as close to Osama as you can, or stage his death and dump his body near where you snatched him, making it look like he killed himself. Easy peasy if you don't really care about the law as you seem to believe the USA doesn't.

      So bye bye to what you think is your best argument..

      And if you don't think the UK wouldn't willingly participate in such a activity with the USA.. You are sadly mistaken.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    55. Re:I hope they just let him go by Megol · · Score: 1

      He is not an enemy combatant so will not be put into Guantanamo, he doesn't hold any secret worthy of "strengthened interrogation", he is known to the world unlike the people tortured and put into Guantanamo, and the US will not make themselves a pariah of the civilized world for this narcissistic small fry. There is no need for secret trials as there isn't anything secret about who Assange is and what he did, if there are secret parts in the trial there are established ways to handle that in a normal trial.

      Try to join us in the real world - you are pretty far out there ATM.

    56. Re: I hope they just let him go by phayes · · Score: 1

      In under 2 dozen words you've shown yourself to be a whataboutist complicit with a bail jumping rapist.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    57. Re:I hope they just let him go by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      If the US has additional charges, and I strongly suspect that they do, they will hold off with them until he is in the US. If they pile them on now it will make it easier for him to argue that he won't get a fair trial or may be tortured (e.g. sent to Guantanamo) over any one of them.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    58. Re:I hope they just let him go by Megol · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of evidence of Assange being a self-promoting narcissist, have you been following the whole thing? Assange have made known false statements to make _him_ an important person in several cases, he have wailed how people are mean to him when choosing not to face serious accusations and breaking his word (to come back to Sweden). This is a narcissistic scumbag* if there ever were any.

      (* not directly related to the release of secret information but what information he choose to release and when)

    59. Re:I hope they just let him go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Arrogance of the government. "He caused them to...". No, they chose to do that on their own, if they only wanted to talk to him as they initially indicated, then they wouldn't have done all that.

      Assange was correct.

    60. Re:I hope they just let him go by LaminatorX · · Score: 1

      Manning & Snowden were both charged under the Espionage Act.

      You also mis-inderstand the signing bit. That's not a requirement for legal jeopardy, it just makes any transgression unequivocally "knowing" should prosecutors need to make such a case in the future.

    61. Re:I hope they just let him go by noodler · · Score: 1

      "The US has no claim for him. We don't torture POW's or journalists."
      If not POW's, then who populates sites like Guantanamo Bay?

    62. Re:I hope they just let him go by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      "Enemy combatant" isn't an actual think, it's just a definition that the US made up in order to avoid giving accused criminals it captured the normal rights accused criminals get.

      Much of the information that Wikileaks released is still classified and technically illegal to posses. There is a lot of unreleased material as well, and it's likely that they have been at least trying to compromise his accounts and computers to recover evidence that he has it, which they would argue is classified and can't be used in open court.

      Also note that he might not even get a civilian trial. Manning was tried by a military court, as were the inmates at Guantanamo.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    63. Re:I hope they just let him go by phayes · · Score: 1

      He's not going to be extradited to Russia or Saudi Arabia, so no.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    64. Re:I hope they just let him go by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      There's currently no European arrest warrant outstanding for him or extradition request from the USA

      That post didn't age well: https://www.theguardian.com/me...

      and since it's a shitty live update site:
      "Extradition request from US confirmed
      Scotland Yard has confirmed that Assange was arrested on behalf of the US after receiving a request for his extradition.

      In a statement it said:

      Julian Assange, 47, (03.07.71) has today, Thursday 11 April, been further arrested on behalf of the United States authorities, at 10:53hrs after his arrival at a central London police station. This is an extradition warrant under Section 73 of the Extradition Act. He will appear in custody at Westminster magistrates court as soon as possible."

    65. Re:I hope they just let him go by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Just mount a "special rendition" operation once the UK sets him free

      Why kidnap someone so high profile from the streets of London when they can just use legal means to do the same thing? Why cause an international incident when all they have to do is put in a normal extradition request?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    66. Re:I hope they just let him go by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Ecuador demanded a guarantee that Assange would not be tortured

      They won't torture him. They'll just thoroughly wash his face.

    67. Re:I hope they just let him go by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      The worst thing that can happen to him now is the same thing that was done to Whitey Bulger: "unofficial official" assassination.

    68. Re:I hope they just let him go by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      That's a crime.

      Jurisdiction??

    69. Re:I hope they just let him go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The usual boilerplate about "innocent until proven guilty" is in there, of course, but also the maximum sentence they are pushing for, which seems like a rather light five years before any time off for good behaviour and other considerations.

      Except the section they're possibly using is this and has varying degrees of potential maximum punishment from a fine to five years to a maximum of any number of years to life depending on the severity of the intentions of the parties involved. Specifically, "(F) if the offender attempts to cause or knowingly or recklessly causes death from conduct in violation of subsection (a)(5)(A), a fine under this title, imprisonment for any term of years or for life, or both;" seems to be the scope of discussion when it comes to divulging military secrets.

      That's not to say they won't add extra charges (or arrange an "accident", if that's your view) between now and any potential trial, but that's still considerably less than I would have expected as a starting point given all the FUD from Assange and his supporters,

      If you want to extradite someone to the US to face a death sentence, you low ball the offense to whatever minimal that still would clearly warrant extradition. Yes, this could hurt further extraditions because it's clearly false representation, but I totally see the US not only doing it but the UK courts generally being okay with it given if the reverse were true the UK would definitely want to be able to extradite a US person divulging UK military secrets. Seriously, given all the talk up to this point about how the US couldn't and wouldn't attempt extradition and this is all about bail of the case in Sweden and how it was all paranoia trying to avoid rape charges, how is this not an example of the shoe dropping? I await for the other shoe to drop.

    70. Re:I hope they just let him go by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why would they torture him? The DoJ's signals thus far are a five year prison term, and it's unlikely, even if convicted, that he would spend five years in prison. But the US was never going to let the Manning fiasco go unpunished. Manning spent time in prison for it, and now so will Assange. We can debate whether or not what Assange did was right or wrong, but dumping thousands of unredacted cables without concern for the lives that might be put in jeopardy, not to mention the necessity of US diplomats needing to report observations and interactions back to the State Department without fear of reprisal, makes me think the way Wikileaks handled it was grossly negligent, and should be punished.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    71. Re:I hope they just let him go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The worst thing that could happen to him now is that the US doesn't try to extradite him

      I think we all know full well that the US intends for this guy to die in some dark hole of a US prison cell. Assange's future is pretty certain at this point now, it only goes down from here till his "untimely" demise.

    72. Re:I hope they just let him go by kenh · · Score: 1

      That evidence would also add weight to the argument that he was effectively incarcerated for 7 years, being unable to leave for at least part of it while Sweden was still seeking extradition.

      Curious how "avoiding extradition" in any way equates to incarceration:

      - Assange sought asylum/sanctuary from extradition by choice.

      - Assange could leave the Embassy any time he liked.

      - Assange was free to do anything he wanted while in the Embassy.

      That does not in any way correlate to any reasonable definition of incarceration I'm aware of.

      --
      Ken
    73. Re:I hope they just let him go by Sarten-X · · Score: 2

      But here, he's an Australian citizen being extradited for so far unspecified crimes committed against a country he apparently wasn't in and isn't a citizen of.

      The indictment's unsealed. The crimes are very clearly specified. Despite what Hollywood would have you believe about jurisdiction, it's not so much a question of physical location, but whose rules apply in the pursuit of justice.

      Imagine if the US turned over to China everybody who spoke ill of the Chinese government, or shipped off to North Korea the people who released documents that North Korea deemed offensive.

      Well, that's certainly possible. China or North Korea could request extradition (even without a treaty, though that helps), and for whatever reason, we could agree. In almost all cases (including this one), the alleged crime must be a crime in both jurisdictions, and the country that would release the accused would need to be convinced that their suitable due process would be adequately followed. That's why several countries will not extradite to the US for anything where the death penalty is an option if their own laws wouldn't allow it, and it's also why the US won't usually extradite to places it sees as having corrupt courts.

      Again, the extradition is really just changing whose rules are followed during the trial. Extradition does not change the facts of a case, including what was or wasn't legal at the time the alleged crime was committed.

      Yes, this technically means you're subject to the laws of every country at all times. If a German citizen is in Germany speaking ill of the Chinese government, then visits China tomorrow, they could be prosecuted there for their crimes. If they get arrested in Germany before getting to China, China could request extradition.

      From what I've read, his only ties to the US are that he offended politicians there, and published documents the government (which was a foreign government for him) didn't want published.

      He also (allegedly, with enough evidence for an indictment) committed a crime against the American owners of a computer system.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    74. Re:I hope they just let him go by kenh · · Score: 1

      So Assange spent seven years of his life trying to avoid a maximum five year jail sentence?

      I thought this guy was smart? That seems kinda dumb. He could have gotten out 2-3 years earlier for good behavior.

      --
      Ken
    75. Re:I hope they just let him go by kenh · · Score: 1

      Your remark is the lowest kind of ad hominem attack.

      Really? You can't think of any worse kind of ad hominem attack than calling someone a "narcissist"?

      I can.

      --
      Ken
    76. Re:I hope they just let him go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like *that* will happen. I just hope he gets the medical treatment his needs. But I guarantee that the American Empire will try to get him. The U.K. has promised Ecuador that they will not allow this Aussie to go to a country that tortures prisoners and has a death penalty - like the American Empire. We will see if the U.K. has any honor. I do NOT look for kingdoms and empires to have any. Assange is a HERO! Maybe a flawed human being, but who is not?

    77. Re:I hope they just let him go by kenh · · Score: 1

      He's reduced himself to a babbling nut-job, why waste the bullet?

      --
      Ken
    78. Re:I hope they just let him go by kenh · · Score: 1

      Extradited on hacking charges - the US has apparently got evidence that he helped snowden and manning hack into Federal computer systems.

      --
      Ken
    79. Re:I hope they just let him go by zilym · · Score: 1

      Also there has been a costly policing situation outside the embassy as a result of his hiding away in there for the past seven years. That is British taxpayers' money, it's understandable that there will be a penalty for this whole situation.

      Yeah, the gov't should penalize Assange for all the money the gov't wasted on this witch-hunt, because the gov't wasting tax payer's money was totally within Assange's control. That's justice!

    80. Re:I hope they just let him go by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Do you think that the one hacking charge is all they have? I think it's likely that once they get him they will pile on the charges.

      Even if it wasn't Assange, adding extra charges is pretty much SOP for US prosecutors, right? To encourage the accused to take a plea bargain or give up others involved.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    81. Re:I hope they just let him go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can't say "we'll hang the guy" if they want him extradited, can they.

    82. Re:I hope they just let him go by tinkerton · · Score: 0

      As a journalist, Assange must be a passive observer of the world, publishing information given to him. He shouldn't have any active role in obtaining the information.

      Your depiction of the neutral and objective journalist is entirely that of the Tannoy. you put your message in on one side and it comes out the other. It becomes journalism as extension of power. And that is a head-on attack on the press as watchdog over power.
      Under Obama this event was known, and it was not used (despite their already aggressive anti-press stance) because it would endanger journalism ( https://theintercept.com/2018/... )

    83. Re:I hope they just let him go by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Maybe they will. But it isn't going to be an extrajudicial torture chamber. Because there is national security involved, aspects of the trial will happen outside of public view, but it will be a regular judicial proceedings, and if Assange takes a plea bargain, then that's par for the course as well, no different than how you would, say, prosecute mobsters. But facilitating and even encouraging the dump of all those cables was something Assange should have been aware would inevitably bring him in to conflict with the DoJ, but he was so drunk on his own cult of personality that he failed to see the risks. The way that newspapers like the Guardian tried to handle it was the way a journalist handles such a hot potato, with caution and an eye to consequences. It's why they are journalists, and Assange is just a polemicist.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    84. Re:I hope they just let him go by Dan667 · · Score: 1

      the british government did not need to spend that money watching the embassy. That was their choice.

    85. Re:I hope they just let him go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not defending him... But "investigation for rape" is not really correct..

      Read the full history with both parties view-points...
      https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden

      Sure he might be an a-hole in all of this, depending on who you choose to believe, but to say rape is not really fair..

      Sweden do have a history of making off the record deals with the US like the quite known:
      https://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-ban-cia-rendition

      So yea... i would too be scared if i did something to anger the ones in power in the US... (Who was that US politician that said he should be executed for his crimes?)

    86. Re:I hope they just let him go by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      Also, pretty chuffed that I got the word Tannoy in there.

    87. Re:I hope they just let him go by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Informative

      Does the UK recognize any US law enforcement standard practices as "torture"? Because that's going to be a hard case to make. Sure, if Assange could argue he was likely to be rendered, then that'd be one thing, but the reality is the very fact the US is doing things through the correct channels right now would undermine that aspect of Assange's argument (should he choose to make it.)

      NOTE: I am not arguing the US doesn't torture, and doesn't torture prisoners on US soil. Amnesty International has a long list of things the US does that it considers that and I agree with 90% of them. What I'm stating is that the UK doesn't, as far as I'm aware, recognize what it does as torture: if it did, it wouldn't ever extradite anyone.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    88. Re:I hope they just let him go by tigersha · · Score: 1

      Seriously, if someone voluntarily decides to go live in an banana republic shithole that does not count as "incarceration". Removal of his freedom of action is the whole point of that word, "incarceration". The idea is that he does not get to decide what he does, or at least very limited.

      --
      The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
    89. Re: I hope they just let him go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut up or we'll kill you.

    90. Re:I hope they just let him go by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Indefinitely solitary confinement as punishment would be considered torture, for example. Also forced labour is not allowed under UK law, and some states have that I believe (not sure about at the federal level).

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    91. Re:I hope they just let him go by c · · Score: 1

      So the CPS has to ask if it is worth all the expense of a prosecution, or find additional stuff to charge him with.

      Option three would be to deport him ASAP and wash their hands of the whole mess. Or it would've been if the US hand't pounced with that extradition order.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    92. Re:I hope they just let him go by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Forced labor is exclusively a States thing.

      I would agree about solitary confinement but the question isn't about whether you or I think so, but whether the UK government is on record of recognizing this as torture and therefore whether Assange would actually have a real fear of torture should he have given himself up to the UK authorities.

      (Interestingly if the UK government does recognize it as torture, then the consequences may not be as Assange wants them. After all, if the UK government does, then the UK government wouldn't extradite without commitments from the US that they won't do this. If the UK government doesn't, then Assange can't argue it's torture in court and expect the court to agree with him. Kinda a Catch 22. Of course, doing everything in your power to replace a moderate who just doesn't hate torture enough with a right wing lunatic who's pro-torture does kinda mean Assange has built these little paradoxes for himself.)

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    93. Re:I hope they just let him go by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The UK government has in the past tried to get assurances that things like solitary confinement punishment won't be used. I don't know if they have always been honoured by the US, certainly some other countries like Egypt have not.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    94. Re: I hope they just let him go by shentino · · Score: 1

      Rather like outlawry.

      In the middle ages, if you skip court on a felony charge you were automatically convicted of the felony itself and sentenced to outlawry for it.

      If you skipped court on a misdemeanor though they just nailed you for a separate charge of contempt of court which was a felony in itself and outlawed you anyway.

    95. Re:I hope they just let him go by shentino · · Score: 1

      Contempt may be "basic" but in most courts it's a serious offense on its own that is prosecuted quite separately from the charge in the underlying case.

      Escaping from prison or jumping bail are likewise separate offenses from the crime you were respectively convicted or indicted for.

      They are punished separately from the original crime and you can still be convicted of them even if you're found innocent of the first charge.

    96. Re:I hope they just let him go by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Exactly.. He's never going to see GITMO and even if the DOJ gets the maximum sentence on the current charges it's 5-8 years. He's coming to the USA and soon, to face the music.

      The whole "They will torture me" argument to fight extradition is patently ridiculous and without legal merit. There are SO many reasons they won't do this to him, and sooo many ways they *could* get around extradition if they really wanted too that badly. The sad fact here is that the conspiracy theories run deep with the likes of AmiMoJo and they have to make up stuff to keep their champion in play..

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    97. Re:I hope they just let him go by shentino · · Score: 1

      The US has a claim if they say they do.

      Not only because they apparently have a valid arrest warrant, but also because they're a political superpower and might makes right.

      Whether the court that issued the arrest warrant in the first place had competence to begin with is another story and that's a can of worms of its own, but then again that's part of the package when it comes to international sovereignty.

    98. Re:I hope they just let him go by Cederic · · Score: 1

      They have to decide if the prosecution is in the public interest

      Given that within four hours of you posted that he'd already been tried and convicted, I guess it was in the public interest.

    99. Re:I hope they just let him go by Sarten-X · · Score: 2

      Your depiction of the ... journalist is ... journalism as extension of power. And that is a head-on attack on the press as watchdog over power.

      That is neither how the system presently works, nor how it should work.

      The singular job of a journalist is to inform the public. It is the public that is the watchdog, and holds power over the laws in a republic, and those laws hold power over the government. To make a journalist exempt from laws is a threat to rule of law itself. Anyone with a press card becomes a tyrant, able to trample others' rights in the name of an unchecked and unaccountable investigation.

      A journalist must observe the world, and publish information given to him. Between those events, though, there's far more than the unthinking mechanisms of a Tannoy (and today I've learned a new word - thanks!). The journalist collects information, understands it, and presents it in such a way that the public can more clearly see the truth as the journalist sees it. With apologies to Orwell, it is the journalist's job to say "hey, last week we were at war with Eurasia, but now we're allies fighting Eastasia."

      However, it is not the job of a journalist to actually go visit the enemy soldiers and ask where they're from. It's not the journalist who should maintain a record of who was fighting or when. If another citizen showed up at the journalist's desk with all of the required material information, the same story could be published by the journalist. The journalist role is still to simply collect and combine bits of information into the story.

      Now, if a regular citizen (or any other role) wants to go visit a war zone, they can. They can also keep whatever lists they want, or hack whatever computers they want, or break into whatever secured facilities they want. If those actions are illegal, they can be prosecuted. That doesn't change if the regular citizen (or investigator, or any other role) also plays a journalist role. The journalist is subject to the rule of law, just like anybody else.

      With that in mind, consider that this isn't a charge against Julian Assange, the publishing journalist. It's a charge against Julian Assange, the guy who offered to crack a password hash for Manning, knowing Manning wasn't authorized to have that password.

      Under Obama this event was known, and it was not used (despite their already aggressive anti-press stance) because it would endanger journalism

      Not quite. Even if the American government had wanted to press this charge earlier, they couldn't really do anything until Assange's asylum was revoked, or until Ecuador chose to permit extradition, which would have almost certainly revoked the asylum in itself. It's hard to overstate just how much Assange's freedom has been relying on his asylum status. This indictment has been waiting for a year, and the UK's bail-related charges have been waiting even longer. Ecuador's willingness to house Assange and tolerate his annoyance has been all that's protected him.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    100. Re:I hope they just let him go by shentino · · Score: 1

      China can certainly ask, but the request would be complete bullshit and China probably knows it.

      But technically there would be nothing stopping a chinese court from issuing a chinese arrest warrant for an american citizen for posting something on the internet that would be illegal under chinese law.

      And it would be illegal under chinese law simply because the chinese court fucking said so. The warrant would be just as valid at least under chinese law as the warrant the US apparently has for Assange.

      Whether anyone will pay attention to the chinese arrest warrant has nothing to do with the validity of chinese law. It has everything to do with international politics, which just boils down to what the people with the most clout will want to happen.

      The only reason that the US warrant holds any validity that such a hypothetical chinese warrant would lack is simply because the US is an 800 pound gorilla and in a position to hurt anyone that gets in its way.

    101. Re: I hope they just let him go by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Are we talking about the very same judicial "system" that slaps violent offenders on the wrist while criminalizing the act of referring to a guy in a dress as "a guy in a dress?"

      Yes. Meanwhile it's perfectly possible to find specific instances of the law and how it's applied to be distasteful, wrong or frankly fucking terrible, while at the same time also greatly supporting the rule of law including aspects such as "jumping bail is a very serious offence".

      By the way, in less than ten words you've revealed more about your own character and intellect than you could possibly imagine...

      Yeah, he's revealed that he understands complexity, nuance and the importance of the rule of law. If only you'd been able to do the same.

    102. Re:I hope they just let him go by Cederic · · Score: 1

      It's irrelevant whether he gets a judicial sentence anyway. I think he will, but he'll be held on remand awaiting the inevitable appeals against extradition anyway.

      Not a chance he's going to get bail for those.

    103. Re:I hope they just let him go by Cederic · · Score: 1

      About the only way out would be to present evidence of kidnapping or being forced to skip bail by others by threats or duress

      I strongly suspect the primary reason is due to behind held in prison (on remand or otherwise) and the prison services failing to meet their obligations to bring you to court.

      https://www.thebureauinvestiga...

      Although you do get some comical excuses, such as "I'm worried about you prosecuting me" - https://courtnewsuk.co.uk/poli...

    104. Re:I hope they just let him go by Cederic · · Score: 1

      We don't torture POW's or journalists.

      Now that's just utter fucking bullshit. I'm not even talking about shit like Abu Ghraib, in Guantanamo it was explicit US policy to torture prisoners of war.

      He has broken no US law that he could be subject to.

      I think it'll be a few years yet before we get a definitive answer to that one.

    105. Re:I hope they just let him go by Cederic · · Score: 1

      evidence that Assange is a narcissist.

      Leaving aside the decade of comments he's made, public appearances he's made, actions he's taken, public perception, attacks by people that dislike him and any medical diagnosis, he was explicitly called a narcissist in court today by a qualified and respected judge.

      I think that qualifies somewhat above the bar of

      There is not the slightest evidence

      And if there were, it would not have the slightest bearing on his public behaviour.

      Logic fail. His public behaviour is amongst the evidence of narcissism. If A because B, then B leads to A.

      That doesn't mean that A is because B, but we're not discussing hard reality here, we're discussing 'slightest evidence' and perception is a form of evidence.

    106. Re: I hope they just let him go by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      Die, piece of shit AC, die. Go back to 4chan.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    107. Re:I hope they just let him go by cmseagle · · Score: 1

      Imagine if the US turned over to China everybody who spoke ill of the Chinese government, or shipped off to North Korea the people who released documents that North Korea deemed offensive.

      That would indeed be terrifying, which is why most of the Western world has extradition treaties with neither of those countries.

    108. Re:I hope they just let him go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You, conservatives, never give up, do you, with your pro-America bullshit? You must be sitting there right now with a smug look on your face, knowing that Assange isn't out of reach from the long arm of US law. I'm sick and tired of you, goddamn neanderthals.

    109. Re:I hope they just let him go by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, he humiliated the government and caused it to waste many millions on policing outside the embassy.

      That's a bit of a stretch. They chose to do that; they wouldn't normally put anything like those resources on a crime of that level.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    110. Re:I hope they just let him go by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      Why would they torture him?

      They have a record of doing so. And even if not specifically, many US prisons are at the level of torture by many measures, for example prologed solitary confinement, high levels of prison violence, etc.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    111. Re:I hope they just let him go by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Narcissists* aren't that courageous, nor do they have values.

      Your remark is the lowest kind of ad hominem attack.

      I'm not attacking Assange, I'm defending him. There is no way a narcissist would have the courage to do what he is doing.

      *corrected grammar from my original comment.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    112. Re:I hope they just let him go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only reason that the US warrant holds any validity that such a hypothetical chinese warrant would lack is simply because the US is an 800 pound gorilla and in a position to hurt anyone that gets in its way.

      The ONLY reason? No.
      Despite the crazy twisted tale of the Assange case, and obvious problems that need reform in the current US system and which we discuss frequently around here, literally everyone on the planet still trusts the US justice system above that of the PRC.

    113. Re:I hope they just let him go by epine · · Score: 1

      If I were a judge and someone tried to convince me that a criminal was already incarcerated because he chose to hide, I'd have the guy committed due to extreme stupidity.

      Because you're a vengeance whore, and you think deterrence has nothing to do with this, and the bottomless public purse should fund arbitrary justice sadism with no social cost-benefit analysis whatsoever. No sane person in this world envies Assange's living arrangements for the past seven years, much of which was spent with the social status of an unwelcome house guest.

      Is an addition year of incarceration likely to change Assange's morality in any significant way? Highly unlikely.

      Is an additional year of incarceration likely to deter others from following the same glorious path in life? Extremely marginal.

      If they put him away on something substantial, that's a whole different ballgame, because justice must be served. But if they don't, another pittance of different captivity, at this point, is just a leech on the public purse.

    114. Re:I hope they just let him go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dumping thousands of unredacted cables without concern for the lives that might be put in jeopardy, not to mention the necessity of US diplomats needing to report observations and interactions back to the State Department without fear of reprisal, makes me think the way Wikileaks handled it was grossly negligent, and should be punished.

      That was negligent, but please remember that it wasn't Wikileaks who did that.

    115. Re:I hope they just let him go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The rape allegations were hardly concocted and no they weren't well known to the intelligence community. The accusers didn't actually want to proceed with prosecution which is hardly indicative of a prefabricated scheme to frame someone.

    116. Re:I hope they just let him go by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      It annoys me that after all these years that Assange was ridiculized for his claims that the US was after him, that finally gets arrested with a US warrant of extradition and instantly all this denial disappears and the US warrant is considered entirely justified and there is no problem at all with it. The issue at hand here is that this is an attack on the press, saying that whenever the press publishes something the government (or other players) disapprove of, they will find a way to get back at them. And that is how every journalist who investigates government business will understand it and will feel that their freedom of movement is shrinking fast.
      I know what it is to catch someone on a technicality and that is what this is. You can always say about a technicality that you're applying the law and the law should be applied. On the other hand if you want to catch someone you can always arrange it for such a technicality, or worse to turn up. As I said before, that is why under Obama they decided that this was a dangerous precedent. Maybe something can be made with the case of the password. The practice of requesting more information from leakers is entirely standard practice with any journalist who functions.
      Your vision of what a journalist should do is deeply flawed. I'm familiar with it, the impartial/objective neutralist journalist. It has done a lot of damage to the profession and it exists exactly to remove all the danger from journalists. There are good journalists who swear by it, but only because they don't see that they're actually doing something else. You want the journalist to be reliable and complete when he tells you what he is looking at. But a true neutral journalist looks where he is told to look and that makes him effectively neutered. And incidentally that is what most journalists are now, mere copywriters, mouthpieces and cheerleaders who teach you nothing about what is going on and make a big deal of red herrings like Russiagate. And if the case falls apart they deny all fault claiming they are just reporting and not involved othewise

      I have a document here with Assanges version (2013) of the events leading up to his request for asylum in the embassy ( https://wikileaks.org/IMG/html... ) . The difference with 'what everyone knows' is remarkable. And how is that? Because your true journalism was not told to look at it.

    117. Re:I hope they just let him go by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      And Tannoy used to make broadcasting systems, hence the expression. Now they make high end speakers with special drivers, with the tweeter built right in the middle of the woofers which are up to 15 inch. Result is very good sound at low volume and excellent imaging overall.

    118. Re:I hope they just let him go by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      I've definitely heard them require the US commit to not using the Death Penalty in a case, and IIRC there's been a few extradition requests refused because the US wouldn't. There's not a lot of sense in the US lying about it, it'll just undermine relations, and it's not as if solitary confinement is an absolute necessity.

      We shall see. I feel like there's a major principle here I should be defending, but Assange has done so much to demonstrate he's a friend of tyranny and an enemy of human rights that it's really hard to be sympathetic. I shall try. But I'm not going to be upset if, assuming the US's case does go too far, to be upset if "we" lose this one.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    119. Re:I hope they just let him go by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      It annoys me that after all these years that Assange was ridiculized for his claims that the US was after him, that finally gets arrested with a US warrant of extradition and instantly all this denial disappears and the US warrant is considered entirely justified and there is no problem at all with it.

      Not quite. I always ridiculed Assange because he's always been playing for sympathy as the ever-persecuted underdog. He flouts every rule, then acts so terribly surprised and hurt when he gets caught. The US is the big power, so of course Assange would claim they were hunting him, regardless of whether they were or not. As it turns out, no, the US wasn't actually hunting him for the first 6 years he was in his self-imposed bail-skipping exile, despite the assertions he makes in his fantasies.

      The issue at hand here is that this is an attack on the press, saying that whenever the press publishes something the government (or other players) disapprove of, they will find a way to get back at them.

      Again, no, that's not actually the case. It's saying that if you conspire to commit a crime, you'll be punished for that crime, and you can't use your press card as a shield. Nobody is above the law.

      And that is how every journalist who investigates government business will understand it and will feel that their freedom of movement is shrinking fast.

      That's quite the assumption. The SPJ's ethics code says journalists should "recognize that legal access to information differs from an ethical justification to publish or broadcast." Again, the only freedom being curtailed is that journalists shouldn't consider themselves to be above the law.

      I know what it is to catch someone on a technicality and that is what this is. ... The practice of requesting more information from leakers is entirely standard practice with any journalist who functions.

      Requesting is fine. There's even some debate about the ethics of paying for information. Once a journalist crosses the line into offering to help steal documents, that's not just a "technicality"... that's a crime.

      Your vision of what a journalist should do is deeply flawed. I'm familiar with it, the impartial/objective neutralist journalist.

      I've never said that a journalist should be impartial or objective. The SPJ says journalists should "never deliberately distort facts or context", and that's all I ask as well. Go ahead and be partial. Put a subjective spin on your reporting like any other human... that's perfectly fine.

      You want the journalist to be reliable and complete when he tells you what he is looking at. But a true neutral journalist looks where he is told to look and that makes him effectively neutered.

      You're making a leap there again, avoiding the point. A journalist can indeed look anywhere that he's lawfully allowed to look, regardless of the desires of his sources or anyone else. He can then report with whatever opinion or direction he wants. However, that looking must be done lawfully. Go ahead and take pictures in public places. That's (usually) legal. Go undercover and lie about who you are to get more access. That's sneaky and underhanded (and gently discouraged by the SPJ), but usually doesn't run afoul of any laws in itself.

      Unfortunately, breaking a password without authorization is not lawful. Conspiring to break the laws set by the CFAA is not lawful. It's not a petty crime, either. It's a federal felony, severe enough to warrant 5 years in prison. There's certainly still debate whether the CFAA is too harsh, but for now, it's on par with manslaughter. Again, it's not something you can ignore just because you're a journalist. Journalists can't break this law without consequences any more than they can commit manslaughter with impunity.

      Nobody's above the rule of law.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    120. Re:I hope they just let him go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No he didn't, other people did. Assange is a self-centred credit stealer and glory hog.

    121. Re:I hope they just let him go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Asperger's claim was used about Gary McKinnon, a UK citizen who got into a U.S. government computer containing retouched pictures of UFOs (the retouchings were meant to hide them), as far as I can remember the story. I think, that because of the esoteric nature of the story, and the fact, that the guy did not mean to cause any harm, his extradition order was stopped by none other than Theresa May herself. Were McKinnon extradited, then this would have ballooned into a Streisand effect, and confirmed, that Mr. McKinnon's claims were all true. Now we are only left guessing as to his claims' veracity.

    122. Re:I hope they just let him go by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      You always ridiculed Assange because that is how he was presented to you. You argue about where journalists are 'allowed' to look. I argue about where journalists will look. They won't look where it's considered wrong to look, not because it is not strictly allowed. I'm on the move now and I can't expand on it but I believe I know a lot about how people's attention works.
      Chris Hedges points to other legal matters :

      Under what law did Ecuadorian President Lenin Moreno capriciously terminate Julian Assange’s rights of asylum as a political refugee? Under what law did Moreno authorize British police to enter the Ecuadorian Embassy—diplomatically sanctioned sovereign territory—to arrest a naturalized citizen of Ecuador? Under what law did Prime Minister Theresa May order the British police to grab Assange, who has never committed a crime? Under what law did President Donald Trump demand the extradition of Assange, who is not a U.S. citizen and whose news organization is not based in the United States?

      So what you're defending right now is a situation where several countries conspire to skirt existing laws in order to bring Assange to court in the US for something he may well be innocent about (Greenwald for instance argues that Assange was only trying to help Manning avoid detection), but that doesn't matter because they'll come up with 10 new accusations against him once he's in the US.

      As for what journalists can do, even a lot of mainstream journalists are now up in arms. You're far too limiting.

    123. Re:I hope they just let him go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The CFAA is a strange beast, because in one strike, it was abused to cause the suffering and suicide of Aaron Swartz.
       
      On the other hand, using that same law to catch Assange is justified and ancient.

  4. After being evicted from Ecuador's embassy by bluegutang · · Score: 1

    Seems Ecuador decided to evict him, and once he was on the street, British police arrested him.

    Source

    1. Re:After being evicted from Ecuador's embassy by Zocalo · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are photos and video of him apparently being carried/escorted out of the embassy by British police, so it seems more likely the Ecudoreans had just had enough and decided to let them come in and arrest him.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    2. Re:After being evicted from Ecuador's embassy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The people that escorted/carried/dragged him to the roadside where Ecuadorian security officers and can be seen re-entering the embassy in some videos.

  5. Plot twist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Donald Trump pardons him and hands him a Medal of Honor.

    1. Re: Plot twist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, he obeyed the Call of Duty after all.

    2. Re:Plot twist... by Archtech · · Score: 1

      That gets my vote.

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    3. Re:Plot twist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      russian trolls can't vote for the us president unless they go back into work and do it remotely

    4. Re:Plot twist... by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      ERRMAGAWD!! Russians! Quick bury your head in the sand deeper!

    5. Re:Plot twist... by belthize · · Score: 1

      Or, now that the Mueller report is out and all indictments against folks like Stone and Manafort have been filed the last remaining possible loose end to establish collusion between Trumps campaign and Russia is Assange so he ends up committing suicide about 2 weeks from now. Certainly after 6 years of being holed up the timing is interesting.

  6. "No one is above the law." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The home secretary, Sajid Javid, said. Just.. Wow.

    1. Re:"No one is above the law." by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I'm confused, why do you find this a wow-worthy statement? Isn't that a basic element of any functioning justice system?

    2. Re: "No one is above the law." by astrofurter · · Score: 1

      "functioning justice system"

      Exactly...

    3. Re: "No one is above the law." by Cederic · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I know your pseudonym damages your credibility but perhaps you could at least fucking explain just what the fuck you think is wrong with 'nobody is above the law'.

      Do you think Assange should be free to break any and all laws he chooses?
      Do you think the British police should ignore him breaking the law?
      Do you have evidence that the law is being inappropriately applied?
      Are you just being a cunt?

      The last question is rhetorical.

    4. Re: "No one is above the law." by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      I know your pseudonym damages your credibility but perhaps you could at least fucking explain just what the fuck you think is wrong with 'nobody is above the law'.

      The problem is Javid said it, an avid Tory and prospect to replace Maybot and they are a group of people who very much think they are above the law.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    5. Re: "No one is above the law." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'nobody is above the law'.

      Like the prosecutors in Sweden and the UK doing a political dog and pony show? Like the people implicated by Wikileak's leaks?

      Not to mention that the UK has become a parade example of how using laws as political weapons does not make them right. 1984 was not a manual.

    6. Re: "No one is above the law." by Musical_Joe · · Score: 1

      Do you think Assange should be free to break any and all laws he chooses?

      Exactly this.

      I get that many people see him as some kind of hero, but you have to look at things like Wikileaks from a number of perspectives.

      Is it interesting to know all about government secrets? Certainly.

      What if revealing those secrets endanger people's lives? Hmmm. Are they all evil?

      What if revealing those secrets upsets international diplomacy considerations?

      That last question is the serious one. Wars have been fought for less that some of the things made public in various leaks.

      Sometimes leaking is important, like knowing about shady agencies using dodgy tools to snoop on us. Other things, like diplomatic cables are probably best left un-leaked, even if they'd be interesting to read? It's a bit like taxes. If you ask people, pretty much 100% of them would say that if they had a choice they wouldn't pay taxes. But if no-one paid taxes, civilisation as we know it would collapse. What people want isn't necessarily what is best, even when people just want to know "the truth". Every country has spies, and they often do some pretty damn important work. Releasing documents that reveal what some spies have done (for instance) isn't of benefit to anyone, other than an interesting bit of reading material - and surely that's not a good enough reason to endanger lives. It's great that we all get to see governments' dirty laundry, but doing so isn't without consequences.

      Thoughts?

    7. Re: "No one is above the law." by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Like the prosecutors in Sweden and the UK doing a political dog and pony show?

      Who in the UK has acted improperly, immorally or unethically, against International law, against UK law, against obligations agreed to in legally created treaties or indeed in a way that damages justice, regarding the Assange situation?

      Other than Assange, I mean.

      Like the people implicated by Wikileak's leaks?

      Outside of UK jurisdiction. But if you do feel Wikileaks have demonstrated a breach of UK law then you're very welcome to bring a criminal prosecution in the UK.

      Not to mention that the UK has become a parade example of how using laws as political weapons does not make them right.

      While it's easy to find examples of any country doing shit like that, I'm not seeing its relevance in context. With no politics involved whatsoever Assange broke the law and has been arrested.

      Someone found guilty of manslaughter broke the law in a similar fashion, was extradited from another country and was today sentenced to six months in prison. Are you going to pretend that was politically motivated?

    8. Re: "No one is above the law." by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I'm still trying to get a sense of Javid. He's a career politician, clearly looking to progress up the ladder and that all by itself diminishes him, but he does seem to be a little less incompetent, authoritarian and dishonest than most of the other holders of his current role in the past two decades.

      Admittedly that's not a high bar.

    9. Re: "No one is above the law." by idji · · Score: 1

      The Queen is above the Law.

    10. Re: "No one is above the law." by shanen · · Score: 0

      I think you're arguing with a troll, but I would add two questions to your list:

      Does Assange even qualify as a journalist?
      If WiliLeaks became a bad form of journalism, has it harmed the work of good journalists?

      The second question is covered at some length in the longer comment I added farther down. It's about viable economic models for journalism and why WikiLeaks is not one of them.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    11. Re: "No one is above the law." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are right in the sense of maintaining status quo - "evolution beats truth"

      which has not worked (look at the state of the planet and humans) and is not sustainable (more secrets needed to prevent more leaks) and overhaul - while being not easy and likely impossible - is ultimately the better way to go

      even if I believe that the overhaul is indeed impossible - human nature and its immediate condition - I would still prefer it over maintaining the failing hypocritical system - which will however be seen as working for average Joe and Mary

    12. Re: "No one is above the law." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The context is relevant because the person you responded to mocked the "functioning justice system".

      Pretending like Assange's "crimes" aren't politically motivated is feigning willful ignorance. He embarassed the well-connected establishment. The US Democrats have deep ties to the UK, e.g. the dossier they used to make up that whole Russian collusion came from a former British intelligence operative.

      This whole shitshow is nothing but politics.

    13. Re: "No one is above the law." by ledow · · Score: 1

      The only UK crime that has definitely been committed is jumping bail.

      This was caused by someone promising a UK court that they wouldn't run and would turn up when requested. That person then *DIDN'T* abide by that.

      You might say the Swedes or the US might have political motivations but literally the only UK crime is being punished.

      There is an extradition request. Which will go before a UK court. And be treated like an extradition request.

      Painting the UK as the bad guy is a really dumb idea. Hell, we sent the Swede's request forms back to them THREE TIMES because they were improper.

      And when one of your allies - in law as well as politically - says "Hey, we have an extradition request", it's not your part to question whether that partner, a member of certain legal agreements which prevent them doing certain things, is going to do those things and withhold your co-operation - at least without a TON of evidence that things are improper.

      We don't extradite to the US if people are facing a death sentence, we ask for it to be commuted to life imprisonment. Beyond that, we don't ask questions, and have no need to. If the US or Sweden choose to lie and break their agreements, that's on them. We can't try and convict them and withhold co-operation based on the *suspect's* hearsay that they might do something illegal with him. That's not how it works.

      Assange will face trial and - based on the prima facie evidence that he skipped bail - be convicted of skipping bail. Then the extradition request will be handled in a court, quite publicly I should think. Then if all the i's are dotted and t's crossed, and we have no cause to think the US will break their legal agreements, then he gets extradited. Then it's the US's problem. And no doubt we will sanction appropriately if they do something they shouldn't.

      But you can't lay the blame at the middlemen who *definitely* 100% certainly had a crime committed against their justice system by him.

      Hell, if you want to blame someone, blame Ecuador for supposedly protecting him all this time when we told them that he would never be recognised as such, harbouring a known criminal, and then ultimately giving him up (*they* granted permission for the police to enter, which has only ever been the obstacle to the UK doing so!).

      The context is: Swedes wanted him. Swedes didn't get him because UK said No. Swedes asked properly. UK started the process. Which included an arrest (which means "to stop", and is used to give time to ascertain the situation and whether charges are warranted). That arrest resulted in Assange being bailed. He broke the bail. Fled the UK law enforcement system. Hid inside Ecuador's embassy in the UK for the better part of a decade, putting out press release, thumbing his nose at authority, costing the UK an *incredible* amount of money. UK then get permission to enter embassy to arrest him, do so. They also get an extradition request, they schedule him in front of a UK court to defend himself against that request. He'll probably even be eligible for legal aid if he wants it.

      At what point has the UK done more than the minimum required under their agreements with the EU/US? At what point have they had the (legal or illegal) capability to do much more to see him behind bars and refused to take those paths?

      The guys a prat. He's going to jail for skipping bail, simple as that. While there, he's going to have a lot of expensive lawyers argue on his behalf about whether any extradition request is valid or not. Then he'll be extradited.

      Good-fecking-riddance.

      All he, Snowden and Manning have done is demonstrated that poor whistleblowing will see you in jail, nobody cares about what they whistleblowed about, and that if you try to pretend you're above the law, you'll ruin your life and end up before it anyway. Oh, and that none of them should have ever trusted any of the others with their information, and certainly not Assange.

    14. Re: "No one is above the law." by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, I'm sure as he progresses the tory ladder he will increase his levels of incompetence, authoritarianism and dishonesty. He is following Boris Johnson as mayor, the man who spend £50million on a vanity project that never got built and £3million on some riot trucks that couldn't be used so he does have to plunge that bar pretty low.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    15. Re: "No one is above the law." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, I'm not the other guy but the idea is not that rule of law is undesirable. The problem is that at several layers of the justice system, from international treaties on down, people in positions of power are imparted with discretion as to how to use that power. Such discretion allows them both reasonable and plausible deniability as to the exercise of that discretion. So you can't point to any specific incidence of abuse any more than you can provide any individual of a species being the example of when evolution occurred. It's a systemic issue.

      I'm from the US, so the example is from here. Without even discussing the police or legislators, there's evidence overall that race of a defendant affects the decision of judges sentencing. This is for plea hearings, where the defendant pleads guilty to a lesser charge in exchange for forgoing an expensive trial. So you remove the variables of juries and evidence. The judge has discretion on what sentence to impose for the crime, within the state guidelines. And what researchers found was that judges, on average, sentence defendants of their own race to 14% more prison time. For any given example you wouldn't necessarily be able to point to a single instance of misconduct, yet overall it's hardly a fair application of what we call "law."

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/24/researchers-have-discovered-a-surprising-racial-bias-in-the-criminal-justice-system/?noredirect=on

      The concern of "rule of law" (and the mild mockery of the other dude) is that it's touted as a trait of a free society, but its implementation and enforcement is not consistent. And the insidious part of the system is that nobody in particular is to blame, everything is within the perfectly legal discretion of the lawmakers, the prosecutors, the police. As long as you trust them implicitly, and assume them to be without bias, you're fine.

    16. Re: "No one is above the law." by Type44Q · · Score: 0

      Are you just being a cunt?

      Well, did the parent rattle-off a bunch of strawman questions in hopes of distracting from the issue??

    17. Re: "No one is above the law." by TimMD909 · · Score: 1

      Do you think anyone truly knows what a true rhetorical question is?

    18. Re: "No one is above the law." by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Given the issue is the words of the British Home Secretary I don't think exploring those words in the context of the criminal charges to which they refer is distracting from the issue.

      What the fuck are you talking about?

    19. Re: "No one is above the law." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is true but breaking laws according to who? It is illegal to break Sharia law regardless of where you are in the world or what citizenship you have according to Saudi Arabia. Does that mean the US should start shipping everyone there to face justice, starting with every woman not wearing a hijab? In Germany it is illegal to deny the holocaust; I know at least 70 people in the US that should be shipped to Germany to face justice post-haste then according to your world view. There are thousands of such examples.

      Julian Assange is an Australian citizen first wanted by Sweden, living in the UK in an Ecuadorian embassy (until now).

    20. Re: "No one is above the law." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it interesting to know all about government secrets? Certainly.

      What if revealing those secrets endanger people's lives? Hmmm. Are they all evil?

      Better not blow up the death star because at least one/ten innocent person must exist there. Wasn't that Abraham's Pleads for Sodom? I guess when we can and do rain fire and brimstone from the heavens, perhaps that's the consideration we should do before going to war? Funny how that such a standard only applies when exposing governmental misdeeds.

      What if revealing those secrets upsets international diplomacy considerations?

      That last question is the serious one. Wars have been fought for less that some of the things made public in various leaks.

      Ah, yes. We have to protect government secrets or governments will lose their shits and start wars killing people. Then of course the blame for the wars shouldn't be rested upon the government leaders who started those wars but those who dared expose government secrets.

      Every country has spies, and they often do some pretty damn important work. Releasing documents that reveal what some spies have done (for instance) isn't of benefit to anyone, other than an interesting bit of reading material - and surely that's not a good enough reason to endanger lives. It's great that we all get to see governments' dirty laundry, but doing so isn't without consequences.

      Everyone has spies, spies on others, and every once in a while leaking who spied on what which confirms that it's not just common knowledge but an actual fact benefits no one? Well, I guess if that's the case every time the a country finds a spy in their country from another country they should merely let them keep doing whatever they're doing without any restriction. By the same token, if they're ever publicly outed at worst we should bury that from the public eye and merely expulse them. I mean, it's all about covering up dirty laundry and trying to avoid unintended consequences. We shouldn't actively try to find spies or expose spying (which clearly countries do because they don't like being spied on and want to discourage it). Instead, it should all be about the consequences of exposing the spying.

      *sigh* Seriously, it's amazing how you do a complete 180 from your initial statement using the talking points that didn't even save Sodom.

    21. Re: "No one is above the law." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, you're just strutting around righteously. But carry on.

    22. Re: "No one is above the law." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, replying to myself. But, supposedly we had faulty intelligence and that lead to a war in Iraq which would be innocent by all reasonable standards*. Now, exposing that faulty intelligence to the public could endanger (to the point of death) intelligence agents and innocent people who worked with them. Which of the two do you see being prosecuted in court? Which do you see resulting in someone being possibly put to death for reckless endangerment of innocent lives on the scale of millions vs reckless endangerment of innocent lives on the scale of tens?

      This is to me the absolute absurdity of what you say. We must trust government secrets that lead to ruin and that are above prosecution or punishment and effect millions of lives leading to thousands of innocent deaths. We must protect the sources of those secrets in the tens of people who may not be at any real risk, where there's no actual harm shown, or at least if there is harm it's always in the scope of possibly ongoing operations and rarely in the scope of actual lives actually lost. It's disgusting to me that you are so quick to protect a government that has actively done horrible things out of supposed ignorance. This doesn't even include the many acts of torture that were done not out of ignorance but almost surely out of malice, both by the military and by intelligence agencies.

      Democracy was supposed to discourage war by discouraging people to invest in their own lives to the death of potentially innocent others. Instead, it has morphed into owning what the government does and always coming up with excuses to justify its atrocious behavior. It's funny how we have a "volunteer army". One could even call it a "mercenary army"--not to be confused with the outright mercenary army the US hires. Maybe if people had to put their lives on the line instead of merely borrowing to pay for someone else to do it we'd have less wars. Then again, nobles having to lead the charge in wars in Europe didn't really stop them. Maybe the whole notion of personal investment to stop war doesn't make sense. Maybe the thing that makes sense at the start would be to have reasonable standards in the first place and stick with them and not conveniently change them out when it comes to the scale of government and the potential death of millions.

      * If we declared a war for sanction violations alone, that'd be a whole other matter.

    23. Re: "No one is above the law." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, what about the trigger happy helicopter crews who targeted and shot a whole bunch of civvies, journalist and first responders to hell and back? All of which are war crimes, btw. Their superiors who protected them? They are under the law too, in your apparently not so humble opinion?

    24. Re: "No one is above the law." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bait and switch... Assange was obviously being persecuted using dubious charges at the time he entered the embassy - one of Australias premier investigative teams found this (that documentary is WELL worth a watch for not only the charges themselves, but the political context at the time).

      These latest charges against him are related to giving information on how to exploit a security weakness, and obfuscating chat logs and files when communicating with Manning. On this site, and in security circles, it's already known that privacy is illegal, as is sharing security vulnerabilities. His Australian legal council says he could get up to 45 years.

    25. Re: "No one is above the law." by Pav · · Score: 1

      Great... so mass surveilance and political bribery is legal, and what one wishes was still standard journalistic practice is illegal.

    26. Re: "No one is above the law." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Laws are for little people. It's a big fucking club and you ain't in it bud. Open your eyes and don't be so naive.

    27. Re: "No one is above the law." by astrofurter · · Score: 0

      So basically you're saying, yep the British government is going to ship a pro-Freedom political dissident to Soviet America, where he will be tortured and likely thrown in the concentration camp at Gitmo. But that's all a-okay, 'cuz formalist legalism. They filled out their forms correctly!

      "IT'S DUH LAHWW!!!1!!!"

      Using the legal system to perpetrate notorious immorality serves only to bring the Law itself, and even the very idea of Law, into popular disrepute.

    28. Re: "No one is above the law." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Corporate Progressive nazi perverts sure do love licking the iron boot.

    29. Re: "No one is above the law." by astrofurter · · Score: 1

      When the law is virtuous, rule of law is a great benefit to mankind.

      When the law is wicked, rule of law is a curse from the gods.

  7. Ley's see what will happen by houghi · · Score: 1

    There are several things that can happen:
    1) He is deported to Sweden, questioned and released
    2) He is deported to Sweden and then send to Gitmo, the US or somewhere else
    3) He is questioned in the UK and released.

    The fact that the US wqill not get involved could mean that they want to paint him now as a silly person and play the "See we told you we wanted to do notiong"-card. If that is the case, in a few months he WILL be deprted somehow to the US.

    It could also be that he is deprted to Sweden and convicted there. Swedes taker the blam for it, while the Mericans where the force behind it. I think that is the most likely situation.

    And as a convicted criminal, they can make his life miserable in a lot of ways. Limiting his access to countries, putting him on a no-fly list and a lot of other legal shit.

    Becausxe we all know the rape allegations where withrawn, so this has not been about the (Swedish legal definition of) rape in a long time.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    1. Re:Ley's see what will happen by muffen · · Score: 1

      Sweden dropped the case, so 1 or 2 will not happen.

    2. Re:Ley's see what will happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not 1) or 2) since his alleged crimes in Sweden are time-barred.

    3. Re:Ley's see what will happen by mentil · · Score: 2

      The case was suspended, since he was inaccessible. The one who did this indicated that they could quickly reopen the case if he were to ever become available. It's as meaningful as reprogramming your ICBM targeting computer to no longer point at your enemy.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    4. Re:Ley's see what will happen by mentil · · Score: 2

      I'd probably rather risk doing a few years in a Swedish prison than go into self-imposed exile in an embassy for several years. So he probably was actually worried of deportation to a black site.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    5. Re:Ley's see what will happen by mrbester · · Score: 4, Informative

      He was never inaccessible. The Swedish prosecutor consistently refused to send someone to interview him (as had been done in several cases of suspected murder with the accused out of the country) and was censured for it (and subsequently resigned) because she only wanted to make a name for herself by prosecuting a high profile target. Instead, she issued the EAW to try and get him returned to Sweden because US had secretly agreed an extradition with her.

      That way, she could claim credit for apprehending and prosecuting a fugitive and US could get their hands on a whistleblower who embarrassed them.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    6. Re:Ley's see what will happen by dwillden · · Score: 1, Informative

      The US does not and has never had any legal grounds to extradite him to the US or to Gitmo. Gitmo is out of the question anyway because he is not an unlawful combatant captured in a war zone with no allegiance to any organized military force that could earn POW status.

      He has not broken any US laws. He did not leak the information, he did not direct the collection of the information leaked by those who did leak it to him. He is not legally liable for the protection of said leaked US secrets.

      He will not be extradited to the US, there is nothing we can request extradition for.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    7. Re:Ley's see what will happen by loonycyborg · · Score: 1

      US would prefer for him to end up in Russia to harness russophoby in order to contravene any embarrassing discoveries wikileaks might bring.

    8. Re:Ley's see what will happen by Frederic54 · · Score: 5, Informative

      From The Guardian:

      Extradition request from US confirmed
      Scotland Yard has confirmed that Assange was arrested on behalf of the US after receiving a request for his extradition.

      In a statement it said:

      Julian Assange, 47, (03.07.71) has today, Thursday 11 April, been further arrested on behalf of the United States authorities, at 10:53hrs after his arrival at a central London police station. This is an extradition warrant under Section 73 of the Extradition Act. He will appear in custody at Westminster Magistrates’ Court as soon as possible.

      --
      "Science will win because it works." - Stephen Hawking
    9. Re:Ley's see what will happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He did not leak the information, he did not direct the collection of the information leaked by those who did leak it to him.

      Posting A/C because of modding.

      But he did actively solicit help in decrypting the Apache video and posting it.

      To my (non-legal) mind, that's the point where the whole "he's not guilty of any US crime" argument breaks down. If you somehow receive an encrypted video file from undisclosed source that you know is US military, and you THEN decide to decrypt it and post the resulting file online, how can you not be a willing participant in a crime at this point? it makes him an accomplice at least.

    10. Re:Ley's see what will happen by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      1) He jumped bail in the UK. He will be tried and almost certainly convicted in the UK on that charge because he is guilty.
      2) He won't be deported to Sweden because they dropped the charges because the victims wanted to get on with their lives..
      3) After he serves his time in the U.K. he may be rendered to the US for questioning and possible prosecution. for conspiracy and espionage charges.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    11. Re:Ley's see what will happen by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      The US has put in a formal extradition request and he was re-arrested on that basis.

      It's not clear what they want him for. Could be related to Manning, could be related to Snowden, could be related to Russia and the Clinton emails, could be all three.

      Apparently Ecuador got a written guarantee that he would not face the death penalty or torture. Such things are illegal under UK law anyway. At his extradition hearing he will doubtless raise concerns about potential torture in the US judicial system, in light of Guantanamo and the use of extended periods of solitary confinement in prisons. It would be illegal for the UK to extradite him if it could reasonably foresee him being subject to any of that.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:Ley's see what will happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't really understand that thing called "jurisdiction", do you?

    13. Re:Ley's see what will happen by spacepimp · · Score: 1

      I know you posted this earlier, however it seems now the US is claiming "computer hacking of US servers" by Assange are grounds for extradition.

    14. Re:Ley's see what will happen by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      That and the fact that Assange had offered to return to Sweden if the government would promise not to hand him over to the United States. Something Sweden could have easily done, as it is a signatory to the UN Convention Against Torture, which forbids extraditing prisoners to countries that practice torture.

      Countries like the United States.

      This told anyone with a couple of functioning neurons that this was never really about an alleged rape, it was always a pretext to get Assange into American hands.

    15. Re:Ley's see what will happen by kenh · · Score: 1

      He has not broken any US laws.

      Hacking.

      He did not leak the information, he did not direct the collection of the information leaked by those who did leak it to him.

      He helped Snowden and Manning hack into US Gov't computers, that's a crime.

      He is not legally liable for the protection of said leaked US secrets.

      No one said he was, he's a hacker - convicted in Australia for hacking, soon will be convicted in US for hacking.

      --
      Ken
    16. Re:Ley's see what will happen by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      It's not clear what they want him for

      Not sure what was available when you wrote that, but the US DoJ has released that Assange has been indicted for helping Manning to crack a password.

    17. Re:Ley's see what will happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prosecutors can't violate Swedish law. Sweden has no extradition treaty with the US so secret agreement is a silly conspiracy theory. AIUI, Sweden needs to have a person present to file charges against him and Assange didn't want to go to Sweden and face the prospects of being held in Swedish custody while awaiting trial.

    18. Re: Ley's see what will happen by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      so these stupid swedish floozies that initiated that shameful spectacle, how are you feeling now, imbeciles?

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    19. Re:Ley's see what will happen by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      Well he was quite inaccessible in the Ecuadorian embassy. There are no proof what so ever about any secretly agreed extradition between Sweden and the US. This while conspiracy is so damn silly, if the US really wanted him they would have snatched him of the street in the middle of the night when no one noticed. Going all the way by rape accusations and then having Sweden breaking their extradition agreement with the UK (which they would have to do in order to send him to the US since the UK only extradited him to face the rape charges) would be a silly plot even for a shitty B movie.

    20. Re:Ley's see what will happen by skoskav · · Score: 1

      The Swedish government (i.e. the executive branch) cannot make promises about extradition, as that is a matter for the judicial system. But the judicial system cannot rule on whether to grant an extradition request until one is received. If a minister tried to force their will through anyway, then that would be ministerial rule, which violates the constitution.

      If an extradition request was made once Assange was in Sweden, it would have to be approved by both Swedish and UK courts due to them both following the European Arrest Warrant Act.

      So I disagree with your premise that it is easy for Sweden to make such promises, when it seems to involve breaking both their constitution and EU law. It would be easier to just extradite Assange from UK directly.

    21. Re:Ley's see what will happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its not a "silly plot". Assange was a very public figure at the time. Simply disappearing him was not an option. His character needed to be attacked, ergo fake rape charges by women who has proven ties to US intelligence contractors awell, not to mention their personal politics were in opposition to him. This severely impeded wikileaks operations, made sure that he couldnt say anything without beeing hassled by the fake charges and psychologially tortured him for years as a result of confinement.

    22. Re:Ley's see what will happen by jafac · · Score: 1

      IMO: there's a lot more to this than what is publicly known.

      Not much of any of this makes any sense. I'd bet my left nipple (which is my favorite) that Assange is much more deeply involved into spying or organized crime activities than has been acknowledged by western authorities.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    23. Re:Ley's see what will happen by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Boilerplate excuses that were BS years ago. Excuses that can easily be debunked by a few yes or no questions:

      1) Is the United States a country known for using torture?

      2) Does the UN Convention Against Torture forbid extraditing prisoners to countries that practice torture?

      3) Is Sweden a signatory to said treaty?

      The answer to each of those questions is of course "yes".

    24. Re:Ley's see what will happen by skoskav · · Score: 1

      The UN Convention Against Torture does not seem to forbid extraditing to countries where torture takes place. Article 3, paragraph 1, seems to indicate that extradition requests can be treated on a case-by-case basis, i.e. based on what the charges are, whether there's an equivalent Swedish crime, and the track-record of the destination country for treating criminals for such offenses. In this case it means that the Swedish judicial system had to get involved in order to make a ruling on whether to carry out the extradition request.

      So I find your debunking to be fallacious, unless perhaps you've found an alternate official interpretation of it, or a paragraph that I missed.

    25. Re:Ley's see what will happen by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      So I find your debunking to be fallacious

      I find your pedantic avoidance to be obnoxious. The simple, undeniable facts of the matter are that the United States has engaged in torture - including subjecting Chelsea Manning to solitary confinement for the second time now - and Sweden has a legal reason not to extradite Assange to the USA.

    26. Re:Ley's see what will happen by skoskav · · Score: 1

      You're missing the point. The decision to extradite or not still has to be made in both a Swedish court, and get a green light from the country that surrendered the person, i.e. the UK, according to the European Arrest Warrant Act. The Swedish executive branch cannot make promises about extradition, as it neither has the power to overrule the judicial branch, nor make rogue extradition decisions, as that would violate the Swedish constitution.

      Whether the person being extradited would be subject to torture is a matter for the Swedish court and the UK to investigate, as detailed in the UN Convention Against Torture.

      So you have not yet managed to explain how Sweden could make an easy promise not to extradite.

    27. Re:Ley's see what will happen by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      I find your pedantic avoidance to still be obnoxious. The simple, undeniable facts of the matter are that the United States has engaged in torture - including subjecting Chelsea Manning to solitary confinement for the second time now - and Sweden has a legal reason not to extradite Assange to the USA.

      Yes, that is a copy and paste, as you are ignoring the international treaties that have been signed right in front of your face. Arguing that signed treaties are nothing more than a suggestion, instead of having the force of law, just to support your unjustifiable authoritarian narrative.

    28. Re:Ley's see what will happen by skoskav · · Score: 1
      You are ignoring the process of the judicial system. Even if the country being extradited to was engaging in torture (North Korea, Saudi Arabia, USA, Iraq, etc.), a government body still has to make that decision whether torture would be a possible outcome for the person. I quote The UN Convention Against Torture:

      Article 3
      2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.

      In Sweden that authority is the judicial branch, as detailed in the Swedish constitution. What you seem to be suggesting is that the Swedish prime minister should give out judicial guarantees, which is not in their power. The Swedish constitution sets up checks and balances in order to prevent such an autocracy.

      Arguing that signed treaties are nothing more than a suggestion, instead of having the force of law, just to support your unjustifiable authoritarian narrative.

      I argued for the opposite. I argue for strict interpretations of The UN Convention Against Torture, European Arrest Warrant Act and the Swedish constitution, which together protects humans rights and prevents autocracy. Your desire for extra-judicial decisions instead suggests an autocracy.

  8. Dont shit were you eat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He treated his hosts badly and the change of government in Ecuador meant his days in the embassy were numbered. I don't think he thought about the end game. He had no hope of getting to Ecuador because diplomatic status is granted by the host country, in this case the UK. He jumped bail in the UK and they were going to get him for that if nothing else.

  9. BBC are pissing me off by Cederic · · Score: 5, Funny

    In depth analysis of the political situation surrounding his arrest, endless exploration of whether he'll be extradited to the US, complex discussions on why the police were permitted to enter the embassy to arrest him.

    Not a single fucking mention of his cat.

    What's happening to the cat! Come on BBC, step up, help us with the important question here.

    1. Re:BBC are pissing me off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He gave the cat away a while back.

    2. Re:BBC are pissing me off by dwillden · · Score: 0

      The US has not requested extradition and will not. They have no grounds for extradition. He has not broken any US Law. He did not compromise our national secrets, those who stole the information and leaked it to him did that and they are the ones criminally liable.

      I just love how people have kept this myth of the US wanting to extradite him alive. They never had grounds to extradite him.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    3. Re:BBC are pissing me off by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Well write to the BBC and complain then, they're the ones constantly fucking discussing that shite.

      Still no mention of the cat though.

    4. Re:BBC are pissing me off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, they just requested extradition today and he was rearrested on behalf of that claim

      As an Aussie, I say "fuck you, fucking lying yank cunts"

    5. Re:BBC are pissing me off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      per http://news.met.police.uk/news/update-arrest-of-julian-assange-365565

      Julian Assange, 47, (03.07.71) has today, Thursday 11 April, been further arrested on behalf of the United States authorities, at 10:53hrs after his arrival at a central London police station. This is an extradition warrant under Section 73 of the Extradition Act. He will appear in custody at Westminster Magistrates' Court later today (Thursday, 11 April).

    6. Re:BBC are pissing me off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US has not requested extradition and will not. They have no grounds for extradition. He has not broken any US Law. He did not compromise our national secrets, those who stole the information and leaked it to him did that and they are the ones criminally liable.

      I just love how people have kept this myth of the US wanting to extradite him alive. They never had grounds to extradite him.

      Quoted in full just to rub your nose in it:

      The Home Office confirmed the US request for Assange’s extradition was for an alleged “computer-related offence”. A Home Office spokesperson said: “We can confirm that Julian Assange was arrested in relation to a provisional extradition request from the United States of America. He is accused in the United States of America computer-related offences.”

      https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/apr/11/julian-assange-arrested-at-ecuadorian-embassy-wikileaks

    7. Re:BBC are pissing me off by tinkerton · · Score: 2

      The US has not requested extradition and will not.etc

      You deserve to be rubbed with your nose in your own comment. Vigorously The US has requested extradition and the British used it as a reason for arrest. And that is exactly the reason why Assange jumped bail and fled to the Ecuadorian embassy. That and his understanding of what the general plan was, 7 years sooner than you, and counting.

    8. Re:BBC are pissing me off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh please. The extradition request was confirmed by authorities before you wrote that comment.

    9. Re: BBC are pissing me off by TimMD909 · · Score: 1

      I too demand an answer right meow.

    10. Re:BBC are pissing me off by will_die · · Score: 2

      According the various articles the cat had been given to an animal shelter a few years ago.

    11. Re:BBC are pissing me off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I heard that he already gave the cat away to someone. I'm not the BBC though.

    12. Re:BBC are pissing me off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US has not requested extradition and will not. They have no grounds for extradition. He has not broken any US Law. He did not compromise our national secrets, those who stole the information and leaked it to him did that and they are the ones criminally liable.

      I just love how people have kept this myth of the US wanting to extradite him alive. They never had grounds to extradite him.

      They have just done so.
      I guess you are slightly wrong.

    13. Re:BBC are pissing me off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right. The cat is the linchpin. The mastermind behind this whole coup.

      https://twitter.com/weedlewobble/status/1116328895001845761

    14. Re:BBC are pissing me off by gtall · · Score: 1

      I think the U.S. should track down the cat and get it extradited as well. Who knows what valuable information the cat has. And cats are sneaky, he's up to something naughty. Hey Trump, the cat wore of of your Make America Stupid Again hats backwards...Go Crazy!!!

    15. Re:BBC are pissing me off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And of course...you are wrong.

    16. Re:BBC are pissing me off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have asked extradition, on bogus and small charges so that UK extradites him and then, later, they come up with the big lies.

    17. Re:BBC are pissing me off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... and where's Snowy? oh wait, that's Tintin. I get them confused all the time.

    18. Re:BBC are pissing me off by aberglas · · Score: 1

      I think you miss understand. This was a reply to a post about his cat.

      I do not think the US has tried to extradite his cat.

    19. Re:BBC are pissing me off by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      Everyone knows the cats of this world are the real overlords who are pulling the strings.
      My cat certainly pulls a lot of strings.

    20. Re:BBC are pissing me off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was adopted out last year: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/11/europe/julian-assange-cat-fate-gbr-intl-trnd/index.html

    21. Re:BBC are pissing me off by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      Still no mention of the cat though.

      Google is your friend, and fuck you NPR.

  10. Absolutely Reprehensible!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That Assange would not take care of his cat!

  11. What a clown by Viol8 · · Score: 0, Troll

    7 years of self enforced jail time which is probably longer than he'd have got even if he'd been found guilty in sweden for rape (which was a long way from a dead cert). Any moral authority he may have had he's long since lost and now he just appears as some sad middle aged man who escaped justice. Whatever happens now his days as any kind of go-to guy for privacy concerns are long since gone and who would trust this man with their whistle blowing secrets after the way he's behaved?

    1. Re:What a clown by Joce640k · · Score: 1, Troll

      Sweden was never the problem. The Swedes aren't really interested in him except as a favor to Hillary Clinton.

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:What a clown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's US juditial and penitentiary system that is real risk here. Instead of 7 years for swedish rape, he'd get sentenced under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917 - although sentences under this act were not severe in the past 20 years, it is possible to put Assange into jail for much longer period.

    3. Re:What a clown by gnasher719 · · Score: 0

      Sweden was never the problem. The Swedes aren't really interested in him except as a favor to Hillary Clinton.

      Sweden is interested in Assange because he is accused of rape. They never managed to interview him or charge him because he fled the country, and when he was ready to be extradited, he fled to an embassy.

      As far as I know, Sweden's extradition request to the UK is still valid. And the case against him was frozen; it will be quickly unfrozen.

    4. Re:What a clown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lies.

      They never tried to interview him. It was all a ruse to get him to expose himself so he could be arrested and handed on a plate to the Americans. Suspected murderers have been interviewed via Skype, but for some reason, that wouldn't do for Assange. Explain that.

      The Swedish case against Assange should not be possible to thaw, it's time-barred. But then again, the entire case reeks of politics to such an extent it hurts the nose of any sane person, and since Sweden is practically as bad as any totalitarian state when it comes to cases involving politics, (Yes, our courts are largely political, where a significant part of the court is appointed by the political parties - no, I'm not making it up, they are called nämndemän - and the rest certainly makes sure to know where the wind blows.) it wouldn't surprise me if they found a way.

    5. Re:What a clown by tinkerton · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sweden is interested in Assange because other people request them to be interested
      https://www.theguardian.com/me...

    6. Re: What a clown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Go read about the Pentagon Papers. The only avenue of attack against Assange is conspiracy to commit computer hacking. Seems likely that Wikileaks will show a communications trail that simply advises leakers how to submit information. Like any journalistic enterprise. Don't you think that Wikileaks founders based their approach on exactly that?

      And "but Russia, Putin" is pure nonsense.

    7. Re:What a clown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > They never managed to interview

      From the guardian:
      14 November: Assange is questioned over the remaining sex allegation at the Ecuadorian embassy by Swedish authorities in a two-day interview.
      [...]
        The Swedish prosecutor Ingrid Isgren arrives to interview Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy in London in November 2016. Photograph: Justin Tallis/AFP/Getty Images

      >or charge him

      And nevertheless, the charges never charged were dropped later.

    8. Re:What a clown by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      he'd get sentenced under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Unless there's more information that has not been released, this is very unlikely. So far, he's being charged with helping Manning to hack a password.

  12. Real TV news isn't reporting it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We don't need to know about this. Real TV news isn't talking about it this morning.

    1. Re: Real TV news isn't reporting it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just "real news" in America. Russia Today has two articles on their site about it right now.

    2. Re: Real TV news isn't reporting it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russia Today is 100% propaganda, same as Pravda.

    3. Re: Real TV news isn't reporting it by ledow · · Score: 1

      Front page of the BBC all day.

    4. Re: Real TV news isn't reporting it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not so much different than Russia Today.

  13. And no flashmob in sight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I would've expected lots of people to show up and make it impossible for the police to arrest the guy while he walks to another embassy.

    Kinda interesting why he got booted, though: Changing political landscapes back in Equador. Who are now in bed with Chinese firms to roll out facial reconition to track all citizens in public "for safety".

    1. Re:And no flashmob in sight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Kinda interesting why he got booted, though: Changing political landscapes back in Equador.

      And for being an irredeemably filthy couch-surfing leech. And abusing their wifi privileges.

      I hope PETA go after him for the way he treated that poor cat.

    2. Re:And no flashmob in sight by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I would've expected lots of people to show up and make it impossible for the police to arrest the guy while he walks to another embassy.

      At which point the police arrest the entire fucking lot of them.

      Not that it was even relevant, he was arrested within the embassy building and the police had full control over the 8 feet of pavement over which he was escorted into a police vehicle.

    3. Re: And no flashmob in sight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, right. People would risk their well-being, their jobs and their lives for anyone? Give up. People are concerned with themelves, rightly so, and they cling to what they still have and which can be snatched away in a moment if they displease the authorities.

    4. Re:And no flashmob in sight by gravewax · · Score: 1

      No embassy would let that ungrateful prick in. He may have done some good in the world before he turned to politics, but the man is a dirty ungrateful slob. who the fuck would let him in the door to live for an indefinite period of time after seeing how poorly he behaved in the Ecuadorian embassy?

    5. Re:And no flashmob in sight by Archtech · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Kinda interesting why he got booted, though: Changing political landscapes back in Equador.

      Not quite. Increasing payments to a very limited number of Ecuadorian politicians. Washington is very free with its dollars, while they still have any value. Soon enough they will be waste paper, so it's understandable they want to squeeze the juice while the racket still works.

      Who are now in bed with Chinese firms to roll out facial reconition to track all citizens in public "for safety".

      Ironic, as the UK has the highest density of public surveillance cameras in the world.

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    6. Re: And no flashmob in sight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you spit shine your jack boots each morning?

    7. Re: And no flashmob in sight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *sniff*
      He picked on Hillary!

      (your likely dogmatic support of him before the DNC email reveal was just as craven)

    8. Re: And no flashmob in sight by gravewax · · Score: 1

      I could not give a shit about the DNC and republications as I am not american. your pathetic attempts to defend him are sad. WikiLeaks started off great, but he chose to turn it into a political organisation rather than one of freedom of information. The moment he did that he became a politician not a freedom fighter and as such he deserves to be treated as a corrupt Politician.

  14. The Empire strikes back by astrofurter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Freedom is dangerous. Big Brother will save us from Freedom. Because Big Brother loves us all.

    1. Re:The Empire strikes back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      d888888b d8888b. db . .db .88b, d88. d8888b.
        ~ 88 ~ 88 `8D. 88 . .88 88'YbdP`88 88, `8D
        . 88 . 88oobY' 88 . .88 88. 88 .88 88oodD'
        . 88 . 88`8b . 88 . .88 88. 88 .88 88
        . 88 . 88 `88. 88b_ d88 88. 88 .88 88
        . YP . 88 . YD ~Y8888P' YP. YP .YP 88

      .d888b.. .d88b.. .d888b.. .d88b.
      VP. `8D .8P. 88. VP. `8D .8P. 88.
      .. odD' 88. d'88. . odD' 88. d'88
      ..88'. .88 d' 88. .88'. .88 d' 88
      j88.. . `88. d8' j88.. . `88. d8'
      888888D. `Y88P'. 888888D. `Y88P'
       

    2. Re:The Empire strikes back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Freedom is dangerous. Big Brother will save us from Freedom. Because Big Brother loves us all.

      If Freedom is dangerous, what becomes of that fabled 'land of the free'?

      Land of Danger ?

    3. Re: The Empire strikes back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So that's why everything has inane warning labels.

    4. Re: The Empire strikes back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you saying we are on the highway to the danger zone?

    5. Re:The Empire strikes back by dorisbrown · · Score: 1

      right

  15. I notice there's a new listing on airbnb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I notice there is a new review on airbnb...

    Loved it so much didnt want to leave.
    but the host started withholding internet.
    food wasn't the most nutritious (nothing a few supplements wouldnt fix).
    View wasn't the best and the balcony didnt get that much sun, but due to the pollution wasnt able to enjoy.
    Kept trying to eavesdrop on my private affairs, interfering with my work..
    I give it 2 ** stars.
    Wont recommend
    Wont be returning anytime soon eh mates!!!! You pack of whiney pricks said I could make myself at home, drink ya beer and then when Im a bit down on my luck they call the Old Bill tell them some wild yarn and get me arrested.. really not cool eh mate.

  16. Re:Assange is a russian intelligence asset by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Put the crack pipe down!

  17. Re:Assange is a russian intelligence asset by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An accusation without substantiation, followed by name calling. Wow.

  18. Re: Assange is a russian intelligence asset by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Vulgar, inarticulate Ukrainian shills sure do hate World Hero of Freedom Julian Assange.

  19. Weird thing is he isn't wanted for arrest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But to appease the USA the UK wasn't allowing the judges to judge whether an EAW would be valid if neither written by a judge nor for an individual who is wanted for arrest in the country issuing the EAW. All they were allowed to look at was whether the CHARGES were, if true, a crime in the UK.

    Why?

    Because if Sweden wanted him for arrest, they'd have to process and find him innocent or guilty (even if he was guilty, the case is now so screwed up by the prosecution it would be kicked out summarily), and if guilty, have to serve their sentence BEFORE some random country can demand the extradition. But someone accused of one can be given away to any country that says they have an arrest outstanding for them immediately, and doesn't have to be litigated like if it were a normal "law abiding" citizen of another EU country.

    So Sweden don't have an arrest warrant for him because they want to give him over to the USA whenever they ask.

    1. Re: Weird thing is he isn't wanted for arrest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sweden don't have a arrest warrant because the prosecutor had nothing to investigate. It may be reopened. The US don't need to go through Sweden to get Assange much easier to ask the UK Wich they already have. The UK as a nato ally and a much weaker position trade wise will hardly deny the US

  20. extradited to USA in 3...2...1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These retards extradit even own citizens to US (which is shame for any state pretending to be souvereign).
    So in this case Sweden might be not involved at all.

    1. Re: extradited to USA in 3...2...1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's not even wanted in the USA. His fear is based only on his own paranoia.

    2. Re: extradited to USA in 3...2...1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was arrested today on request of the US government; It says so in all of the official news statements on this. Jesus you had one job to do before posting lies...

  21. Excxept he was accessible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The demand was to ask him about the incident, not arrest him, and Sweden have interviewed BY SKYPE someone they wanted for murder, so it clearly is possible for them to do it. One of the reasons why this entire case is a load of bollocks and clearly a way to pander to the USA. Though with trump's bullying cowardice and shitheaded arrogance it's entirely possible Sweden could ignore their prosecutor who is married to a politically connected american businessman (IIRC, he could be a lawyer too) and tell the USA that they won't deport merely on their say-so.

  22. Great news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This arsehole has done far too much harm to the real cause of public scrutiny with his narcissistic and nonsensical antics.

  23. Pathetic by bradley13 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Assange did good work with Wikileaks, years ago. Then he grew an inflated ego, and (um, literally) screwed around. Rather than face any charges (which, iirc, were never formally filed), he fled.

    Ultimately, he imprisoned himself for 8 long years.

    I have no idea whether the US would have tried to extradite him from Sweden. Maybe they would have, if Sweden had actually charged him with a crime. But in the meantime, the Swedish case has ended. And the UK can't charge him with much more than skipping a court appearance, which is pretty trivial. He should have long since left the embassy.

    And now this. Ecuador has finally had enough, and tells him to leave. Rather than acting like an adult, and walking out with some dignity, he has to be carried out like a child throwing a tantrum. Pathetic.

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    1. Re:Pathetic by shanen · · Score: 2

      Not surprised the trolls are so eager to censor you. Just lucky I stumbled across it. Sorry, but I never get a mod point to give. At least not in the last decade or two.

      Mostly just expressing agreement, but I think it's also important to consider how the money drove Assange down this path. He didn't have any funding to do real journalism, but he became desperate for the publicity that would bring in some donations. There were some interesting journalism-like ideas buried in Wikipedia, but they got lost a long time ago.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    2. Re:Pathetic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assange did good work with Wikileaks, years ago. Then he grew an inflated ego,

      I think surely an inflated ego is a prerequisite for embarrassing powerful people and institutions. We need people like that, even if we might not like having them as friends.

    3. Re:Pathetic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should give him points anyway because since the extradition was confirmed his post is just utter bs.

    4. Re:Pathetic by Type44Q · · Score: 0

      I like your re-telling of the narrative; very creative. Good boy, shill.

    5. Re:Pathetic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have no idea whether the US would have tried to extradite him from Sweden.

      You do now.

    6. Re:Pathetic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ecuador has not "had enough", they've just been whipped and pressured by the corrupt U.S.

    7. Re:Pathetic by Theaetetus · · Score: 4, Informative

      But in the meantime, the Swedish case has ended.

      Technically, only the assault charge, which he successfully evaded until the statute of limitations expired. The rape charge is still pending.

    8. Re:Pathetic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny how it's been almost exactly a month since Ecuador took $4.2bn from the US in 'aid' and then they decide to do this...

    9. Re:Pathetic by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      The US could not have him extradited from Sweden since that would break Sweden's agreement with UK (the UK court extradited him to Sweden for the single purpose of him facing the rape charges), which would create one big political scandal between those two countries. In the real world, if the US wanted Assange when he was roaming the streets of Stockholm or London they would simply swoop him in a black van during the night unnoticed, that's how they did with every one else that ended up in gitmo from various European countries.

    10. Re:Pathetic by shanen · · Score: 1

      Glad to see better moderators overruled the trolls.

      However, I'm not sure it goes all the way to insightful, as it appears now. Rather I think there is a deeper insight to be revealed in how Assange's distorted personality led him down this road. I even think his paranoia became justified over time...

      As the joke goes, even paranoids can have real enemies.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    11. Re: Pathetic by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      >I have no idea

      about anything, imbecile.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    12. Re:Pathetic by labnet · · Score: 1

      Yep. As Jordan Peterson says, much better to face your dragons than hide from them.

      --
      46137
    13. Re:Pathetic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even at the time one of Australias premier investigative journalism teams found just how seemingly unfounded and irregular those rape allegations were. "Sex, lies and Julian Assange" is really worth a watch, and it goes not only into the allegations, but the politics surrounding Wikileaks at the time.

    14. Re:Pathetic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems the statute in the "hacking" expired as well:

      According to the indictment, Assange and Manning (then known as Bradley, now as Chelsea) conspired in 2010. Manning was prosecuted by the armed forces. The Justice Department’s indictment against Assange was not returned until 2018 — eight years later.

      The five-year statute of limitations that applies to most federal crimes is prescribed for both conspiracy and computer fraud.

      So how is the Justice Department able to prosecute Assange on an indictment filed 3 years after the prescribed limitations period.

      It appears that the Justice Department is relying on an exception, in Section 2332b of the penal code, that extends the statute of limitations to eight years for “acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries.”

      Now, conspiracy to commit computer fraud is a very serious offense, and Assange’s is at the top of the seriousness range because it involved publication of defense secrets that endangered lives, including the lives of our troops. And there’s no doubt that the conspiracy transcended national boundaries — Assange was outside the U.S. when he collaborated with Manning. But is it really an act of terrorism?

      Seems the technological issue "is hacking terrorism?" is lost on the "tech" community here on /.

    15. Re:Pathetic by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Maybe they would have, if Sweden had actually charged him with a crime.

      Maybe? If?

      You know the Swedish suthorities kidnapped some innocent people and handed them over to American agents to be tortured, right?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  24. Re:What's he worrying about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    At least Hillary didn't make president. She would have hung, drawn and quartered him.

    Maybe the USA has had time to cool off. Me? I'm betting he'll be over there within three months.

    Assange worked for Putin.
    Assange worried America would nab him.
    Putin controls Trump.
    Trump ain't gonna do shit.
    Assange's worries are over.

    Or maybe not. Remains to be seen.

    Good God, give it a rest already.

    There was no Trump/Russia collusion.

    There WAS spying on the Trump campaign for political reasons by the Obama administration, and the lid is about to be blown off THAT.

    Which is probably why Democrats and the media (BIRM) are shitting their pants right now.

    You SURE you want to see the full Mueller report? The full contents of the documents directing what Mueller was to investigate remain secret. Hmm, what if he was also looking into the spying Obama did on Trump's campaign?

    Brennan, Clapper, Comey, Yates, McCabe, Strzok, and maybe even Obama himself might be getting measured for orange jumpsuits right now.

  25. Re:What's he worrying about? by reboot246 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You still believe that garbage? It's becoming more and more obvious that it was Hillary and the Democrats who were working with the Russians in order to discredit Trump. Wait for the indictments.

  26. Commenting to undo moderation by kyrsjo · · Score: 1

    .. I misclicked

  27. Good News by Jzanu · · Score: 0

    Assange was a criminal and the most corrupt of all involved, from the very beginning.

    1. Re:Good News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not convinced that it was from the beginning. When they started releasing stuff, it seemed (to me at the time) that this was a good thing. Some well-known, central, safe place that whistle-blowers could send documents, they would ensure they were legit, redact as necessary to save lives, release and publicize. Sounded like a great idea.

      I think that it all went wrong because of money, egos, and subversion from governments, but it's not clear which order those should be in. At this point, it appears to just be another tool to be used by powerful people and organizations to their own ends by making other people and organizations look bad.

    2. Re:Good News by guruevi · · Score: 0

      It didn't go wrong. Public perception aka the media changed their tune when it was clear they weren't politically affiliated with the left. Assange was public media darling during the Bush era releases but the same releases when Obama expanded upon the Bush wars didn't get any attention and when the Clinton thing came out, Wikileaks wasn't a 'good thing' anymore.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  28. Hang Him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In public. Send a message.

  29. Re: Assange is a russian intelligence asset by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Vladimir Putin will be assassinated today!

  30. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by dwillden · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nobody with half a brain accused him of Treason. He's not a US citizen, he can't commit treason against the US, he has no expectation of loyalty to it. Not even for releasing the footage of the lawful Apache combat actions. (The actions in the footage are not crimes under the Laws of Land Warfare as outlined in the various conventions.)

    As to Assange, he cannot be held criminally liable for any of the classified data leaked to Wikileaks and published by him on the site. He never agreed to protect the information from release. The traitors that released it, Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden are the ones facing criminal charges, as they both signed lawful contracts to protect the secrets of this nation.

    The way it works is: If I have a security clearance (I did until it expired after I retired from the Army) and I give you classified information I should be protecting, I am then criminally liable for my actions or inactions that allow the security compromise and the release of the classified information. You however are not. As a US citizen there is a tenuous responsibility that you might hold for receiving but it's not commonly prosecuted unless you also have a clearance. But if you are a citizen of a foreign nation, like Assange, even if that nation is closely allied with the US. You are under no obligation at all to protect that information.

    Now, if you directed me to collect and give you information, then you fall into the realm of conducting international espionage actions. If caught in the US you can be arrested and confined until such time as we trade you back to your home country. But more likely we would just declare you persona non-grata and kick you out of the country. If discovered conducting such activities in another country, we could ask them to do the same things and if allied they might, but they would not extradite you to the US. You would be subject to their laws regarding captured spies.

    The US has never asked anyone to arrest him with the intention of extraditing him. We have nothing we can extradite him for. I won't deny that we might have quietly encouraged the Swedish government to press the issue and the British to make the arrest for extradition to Sweden with the intent of at least making it harder for him to run Wikileaks and leak secrets our own traitors have given him. But Extradition to the US is out of the question. There is literally nothing we can extradite him for. He did not violate any US law that he is subject to.

    --
    I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
  31. Journalism needs new economic models, but... by shanen · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's obvious that journalism needs new economic models, but WikiLeaks is NOT one of them. Having read several books about WikiLeaks, I think the underlying problem was the lack of a viable economic model. There was a good idea under there, but it was buried so deeply and Assange got so far away from any form of actual journalism that the cart got in front of the horse.

    At first WikiLeaks actually understood that the documents should be vetted to make sure they weren't being used to propagate propaganda. Also real journalism requires considering the possible negative ramifications of the release of the information, as when an innocent person might get murdered because their identity is revealed to a vengeful criminal. Multiple sources are important, too, and it is very rare that information cannot be verified by some method or other.

    However Assange rather quickly decided it was more important to prioritize the releases of information for maximization of the value to WikiLeaks, including how the information would affect the increasingly important financial donations WikiLeaks needed. Fairly early in the process, they were overwhelmed with more information than they knew what to do with, so they were forced to start picking and choosing what to reveal, and when, and that is when Assange started tasting the poisonous fruit. Follow the money.

    Solution time? My own proposed solution approach for the economic troubles of journalism would be a solution-based approach. The readers would be able to contribute to solution projects with the journalists earning a percentage for revealing and publicizing the problems. I think there would also need to be an independent entity (I call it the charity share brokerage) that would provide project guidance and evaluation, as well as handling the money.

    Disappointed but not surprised that I couldn't find any substantive comments here on Slashdot, and especially not among the trolls' mods. Enough time for now, so I bid you ADSAuPR, atAJG.

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    1. Re:Journalism needs new economic models, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wikipedia has a pretty good solution.

      Remove the temporal nature of 'journalism' and reference articles from multiple sources.

      It's so unsexy that it doesn't sell. Which makes me think.. the issue isn't one of presenting and researching facts, it's of entertainment.

      True journalism may simply not be profitable in any form.

    2. Re:Journalism needs new economic models, but... by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      Wikileaks strayed so far from its original purpose. It's no longer a wiki and around the last election, it started only publishing stuff against the US government or the Democratic party. Many of the releases weren't even leaks, they were acquired through hacking the sources.

    3. Re:Journalism needs new economic models, but... by shanen · · Score: 1

      Yes, but journalism naturally has an adversarial relationship with the holders of secrets. I think you are actually agreeing with me for the most part, though I am unclear about your focus. My focus is on the economic factors that drove Assange to tilt from impartial journalism towards an extreme form of partisan journalism, where the main harm was ultimately to the reputation of Wikipedia in particular and to the reputation of better journalists in general.

      It goes back to integrity and credibility as the primary "assets" of any journalist or publisher of news. The readers have to believe a journalist is acting with integrity, with higher motivations than the pursuit of publicity and donations, and that what the journalist reportr is credible, which requires some attempts to validate the information as real news, not manufactured propaganda. Assange failed on both counts, and therefore I think WikiLeaks eventually became harmful to real journalism.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    4. Re:Journalism needs new economic models, but... by Cederic · · Score: 1

      It's obvious that journalism needs new economic models, but WikiLeaks is NOT one of them

      That's because the need for something like Wikileaks has almost nothing to do with actual journalism, let alone economic models for journalism.

      Having read several books about WikiLeaks, I think the underlying problem was the lack of a viable economic model.

      I disagree. I think the economic model was always going to be a challenge but I do not think it drove the destructive behaviours that caused so many of the problems Wikileaks and the people around it faced.

      Disappointed but not surprised that I couldn't find any substantive comments here on Slashdot

      Disappointed that you added to the noise level by posting something substantial but not substantive.

    5. Re:Journalism needs new economic models, but... by shanen · · Score: 1

      Disappointed but not surprised that I couldn't find any substantive comments here on Slashdot, and especially not among the trolls' mods. Enough time for now, so I bid you ADSAuPR, atAJG.

      Actually, I eventually managed to find a few substantive comments scattered among the usual troll mods.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  32. I'm curious what the US will charge him with by GrimSavant · · Score: 1

    From the standpoint of the United States Assange is a hostile foreign intelligence agent, but that alone is not enough to try to charge and extradite him here, and he isn't an American citizen. So I'm wondering if they've got him on something more specific than publicizing the dirty laundry that other agents handed to him, because it sounds likely US officials are going to try to get him from the British authorities at some point.

    Imagine the fireworks that would happen if Trump tried to pardon him instead...

    1. Re:I'm curious what the US will charge him with by Zocalo · · Score: 1

      We're probably going to find out in the next few days whether the US has a good reason for extradition or not, because the extradition request has already been formally made to UK authorities. You can probably forget the "not a US citizen" angle though, because there are multiple high-profile instances of the UK extraditing people to the US when they are a citizen of some other nation over the last few years alone and, other than re-issue his passport recently just in case he was evicted from the embassy, Australia doesn't seem to have done a thing to help him since his legal issues began.

      The only question now is will the UK send him to Sweden first (apparently they are planning on re-opening the rape case) so they can wash their hands of any potential issues with the US' more draconian sentencing and let the Swedes deal with that legal quagmire instead, or just rubber stamp the paperwork and have him on a transatlantic flight ASAP.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
  33. Propaganda! It works, Bitches! by tinkerton · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So you have an organisation which very reliably publishes information to the citizens about what its managers are doing. That's what actual journalism is about, not the stuff you see on CNN or MSNBC.
    So the managers tell you where to look instead: that Assange doesn't look after his cat. That he's a rapist and a bail jumper and a Russian stooge like Trump.For the rest nothing to see.
    This is an assault on the freedom of the press. The purpose of all the propaganda is to make you cheer it. And by God, that is what you're doing.

    1. Re:Propaganda! It works, Bitches! by Miles_O'Toole · · Score: 1

      "That's what actual journalism is about, not the stuff you see on Fox News, CNN or MSNBC".

      Fixed that for you!

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
    2. Re:Propaganda! It works, Bitches! by UberClutch · · Score: 1

      So you have an organisation which very reliably publishes information to the citizens about what its managers are doing. That's what actual journalism is about, not the stuff you see on CNN or MSNBC. So the managers tell you where to look instead: that Assange doesn't look after his cat. That he's a rapist and a bail jumper and a Russian stooge like Trump.For the rest nothing to see. This is an assault on the freedom of the press. The purpose of all the propaganda is to make you cheer it. And by God, that is what you're doing.

      You had me until the arbitrary mention of Trump. I am no fan, but the fact that a whole bunch seem to lump him into anything unsavory regardless of evidence or even relevance to the discussion borders on pathological. Especially when a little digging shows evidence of the Clintons profiting and benefiting much more from Russian association than Trump ever has... Big donation to Clinton foundation, voila, shortly thereafter Sec of State Clinton allows controlling interest in Uranium supply to be sold to Soviets. Truth of the matter is once you get to that level in politics they are pretty much all dirt bags. But when you sully an otherwise salient point just to get your dig in on Trump, it seems arbitrary and juvenile and really does not further your cause other than mental hi 5s from those already in agreement with you. If that is what you are going for then more power to you, but if you are making an attempt at gaining ground with undecided or those in less agreement, it just seems petty. But what do I know.

    3. Re:Propaganda! It works, Bitches! by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      That's a misunderstanding. It was not a dig on Trump. I mentioned trump because there is a large overlap between people who believe Assange works for the Russians and people who believe Trump works for the Russians. If it's a dig it's a dig on those people.And that 's a lot of people and most people on here.
      I have made my position clear before and I despise the whole collusion affair and I consider the fact that the Mueller commission has closed while indicting nobody for collusion vindicates me - to the extent that i deserve that.
      If you want my position on Trump: mostly despicable but showed some hopeful signs on political realism(realpolitik) on foreign affairs when he wanted to treat countries like North Korea and Russia as agents who have their own interests and whom you can talk with. Since then, has proven to be very malleable on foreign affairs front and overall very dangerous.

  34. Conspiracy theory... by turp182 · · Score: 1

    Wikileaks has the Mueller report.

    Either the report or Assange will be "released". Ecuador wanted nothing to do with this blackmail, so it rescinded asylum.

    Would make a decent movie, maybe.

    --
    BlameBillCosby.com
  35. Edward Snowden quote by hermi · · Score: 2

    Source:

    Important background for journalists covering the arrest of Julian #Assange by Ecuador: the United Nations formally ruled his detention to be arbitrary, a violation of human rights. They have repeatedly issued statements calling for him to walk free--including very recently. pic.twitter.com/fr12rYdWUF

    1. Re:Edward Snowden quote by Richard_at_work · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The "ruling" on arbitrary detention can legitimately be laughed at because its ridiculous.

      The problem with that ruling is that it didn't just declare Assanges time in the Ecuadorean embassy as "arbitrary detention" - that might have had credit.

      No. The ruling in fact declared that Assange was "arbitrarily detained" from the moment he was arrested by British police to face the extradition warrant, several years prior to his abscondment to the embassy.

      Yes, that's correct - the UN working group considers the judicial process of responding to a legal and valid extradition request to be "arbitrary detention". They apparently seemingly find the British legal system, which allowed Assange representation of his choosing, and repeated appeals to the highest courts in the land, to consist of "arbitrary detention".

      Which is why the UN ruling can be dismissed out of hand. It's an absurd ruling, to say the least.

    2. Re:Edward Snowden quote by Zocalo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not the most informed statement from the UN there, or from Snowden for parroting it. Yes, he would have been arrested had he done so, but Assange could have left the embassy at any time; he was there of his own volition having skipped bail, which is *a crime in its own right* in the UK legal system, and that's what the UK initially arrested him for this morning. That's an important distinction, because the UN is basically saying that Assange should be above sovereign UK law in the matter of skipping bail because reasons. Motivations for seeking asylum aside, he basically went from being a suspect for rape and assault to actual wanted felon all by himself, and at the very least there's a case to be made there.

      I'll grant there are differing - and potentially quite valid - opinions on the motivation behind the Swedish cases and the US' extradition request (for which he's now also been arrested), but the UK's charges are about as black and white as they come.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    3. Re:Edward Snowden quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you SEEN the indictment that the extradition request is based on? It's fucking ludicrous and whomever gives it any heed should be pointed to and laughed at.

      If that's all it takes to get someone forcibly extradited to the US from another country, the rest of the world should be very very wary.

    4. Re:Edward Snowden quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wasn't legal and valid, and the British government's procedure for evaluating the request was lacking - or they would have noticed this fact.

    5. Re:Edward Snowden quote by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I'm confused how a detention can be arbitrary when there was no detention at all.

      They claim that holding him in isolation in Wandsworth was 'abitrary' but that detention ended several years before their statement.

      Shit like this makes the UN Human Rights Council look nearly as farcical as appointing Saudi Arabia as its chair did.

      International credibility: Zero.

    6. Re:Edward Snowden quote by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Yes I have, and no its not ludicrous - it passes all the tests for dual criminality (which defeats the Assange supporters arguments that the offences he is accused of are only offences in Sweden and no where else), and has also passed every other test that Asssanges lawyers threw at it in the Crown Court.

      Assange fought his case in every level of court available in the UK - his arguments were rejected at every level, in detailed rulings that explain every single aspect of why the extradition request is valid and legal.

      So no, its not ludicrous, its perfectly valid and correct.

      And it has nothing to do with the US at all. Unless you are trying to refer to the new extradition request that the US has just posted and not the extradition request that started all this in the first place - in which case, my earlier post has nothing to do with any new extradition request, its all about the Swedish one.

    7. Re:Edward Snowden quote by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      The British government didn't evaluate the request - the English and UK courts did. Several times - with Assange able to post a defence at each stage. And the request was found to be legal and valid at each and every stage. The rulings on those cases and appeals are available publicly, and they make for some good reading.

      The whole extradition process is a legal process validated in the courts - the government didn't get involved.

      Perhaps if you people supporting Assange stopped trying to misrepresent what happened just because you don't like it, you might get somewhere.

  36. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by MikeMo · · Score: 0

    Mod parent up, please. Intelligent, informative post.

  37. Re: Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Except for the fact that he was peddling stolen information.

  38. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    "As to Assange, he cannot be held criminally liable for any of the classified data leaked to Wikileaks and published by him on the site."
     
    You must be kidding.
     
    "He did not violate any US law that he is subject to."
     
    Wait, what planet is this?

  39. Re: What's he worrying about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There WAS spying on the Trump campaign for political reasons by the Obama administration,

    Aren't you reaching as much there? I guess a pot can't use a mirror when calling the kettle black.

  40. Actions have consequences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When you take action on something those actions have consequences. In this case he knew those leaks were classified and he chose to publish them. If he'd published those items showing illegal activity or gross wrongdoing (those journalists being killed by the US military when they suspected they might not be who they thought they were) then I doubt anyone including US prosecutors would be interested in pursuing this.

    What he did do was leak every little bit of classified data which whilst interesting (perhaps) wasn't in the public interest, just to try and cause embarrassment.

    Your actions have consequences and you have to be able to stand up and justify what you've done. you can't just do what you want and then expect that no one can touch you for it. If your defence is that your exposing serious wrongdoing then i think very few people would expect prosecution for that. He's blown that defense by leaking every bit of rubbish and in doing so has damaged the Leaking process which is really important to expose genuine wrongdoing. One diplomat suggesting another diplomat is a bit of an idiot, doesn't count.

    Time to face up to your actions.

    1. Re:Actions have consequences by walterbyrd · · Score: 2

      > In this case he knew those leaks were classified and he chose to publish them.

      So? Is that supposed to be illegal or something? The MSM does this all the time.

      Assange does not have a clearance, and is not even a US citizen. Those who gave him classified information may have committed crimes, but Assange did not.

  41. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Funnily enough, the US has placed an extradition request, as confirmed now by the UK metropolitan police. So I'm afraid you are wrong.

  42. Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think most sensible people lost faith in him a long time ago, I did when everybody else of substance left wikileaks and Assange made it his person ego trip and long before the Swedish charges.

    While I still uphold the principles that wikileaks was supposed espouse he has ruined it so comprehensive it will never recover, I think the only hope is to build something fresh from the ground up with safeguards.

  43. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Extradite him get everything you can from him. Do the same to Snowden. Down with Russkie traitors.

  44. Re:What's he worrying about? by bobbied · · Score: 0

    At least Hillary didn't make president. She would have hung, drawn and quartered him.

    Maybe the USA has had time to cool off. Me? I'm betting he'll be over there within three months.

    Assange worked for Putin. Assange worried America would nab him. Putin controls Trump. Trump ain't gonna do shit. Assange's worries are over.

    Or maybe not. Remains to be seen.

    Good God, give it a rest already.

    There was no Trump/Russia collusion.

    There WAS spying on the Trump campaign for political reasons by the Obama administration, and the lid is about to be blown off THAT.

    Which is probably why Democrats and the media (BIRM) are shitting their pants right now.

    You SURE you want to see the full Mueller report? The full contents of the documents directing what Mueller was to investigate remain secret. Hmm, what if he was also looking into the spying Obama did on Trump's campaign?

    Brennan, Clapper, Comey, Yates, McCabe, Strzok, and maybe even Obama himself might be getting measured for orange jumpsuits right now.

    Well... Whoa up there just a wee bit and lay off the Hanity/Limbaugh theories..

    Where I fully agree that the tables are FINALLY turning and the real collusion investigation is started as you indicate, I'm not expecting there was much involvement at the higher levels that can be proven. Surely Obama, even if he was directing this side show, won't be implicated, nor will the likes of Hillary, Holder or anybody at that level will be indicted unless they where just plain stupid, and none of these people are stupid.

    So we may have a couple of perp walks, Andy McCabe, Comey, maybe Brennon, but I'd be totally surprised if any of these get much jail time..

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  45. It wasn't me! by Ecuador · · Score: 5, Funny

    It wasn't me! Some impostor using my slashdot handle!

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    1. Re:It wasn't me! by tinkerton · · Score: 4, Informative

      You better think twice before denying. There are four billion dollar waiting for you ( https://www.enca.com/business/... )
      to reward you for your good behavior. You're going to let all that pass you by?

  46. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Zocalo · · Score: 5, Informative

    Apparently, the US does think they have something they can extradite him for, because he's now been arrested under the extradition act on behalf of US authorities. The Swedes seem to be planning on re-opening their assualt charges as well, so there's a potential he'll be making a detour to Scandinavia before crossing the Atlantic, which might not be all that unlikely if the objective is about keeping him bottled up as long as possible. Given he's now a proven flight risk I suspect his chances of bail while all this drags on through the appeals courts (which has taken years in other high profile cases) are pretty slim, so even if he ultimately prevails and avoids extradition it's likely to be quite some time before he's getting out of custody.

    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
  47. More likely: Released, but cannot leave UK by Wdi · · Score: 1

    Don't forget that the stiffed his bail donors, reneging on his promise to stand trial, and thus the bail was confiscated. Supposedly, some of the donors are really pissed of, and have the means to aggressively pursue repayment (including, for example, the option to put a lien on the proceeds of any future book deals, etc. he might be offered). With interest, his debt is now to the tune of several million pounds. As soon as the first civil suit in this matter hits the courts, he will most likely have to surrender his passport because he certainly is a flight risk. I expect that will happen in the next days.

    1. Re:More likely: Released, but cannot leave UK by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      Well, if this drags on beyond 31st of October, he won't be able to leave the UK anyways, as there will be not flights... (airlines need a deal with airports where they depart from and land...)

  48. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by kick6 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As to Assange, he cannot be held criminally liable for any of the classified data leaked to Wikileaks and published by him on the site. He never agreed to protect the information from release. The traitors that released it, Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden are the ones facing criminal charges, as they both signed lawful contracts to protect the secrets of this nation.

    It's cute that people still think the US intelligence apparatus follow any sort of rules or laws.

  49. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know, what you write makes perfect sense and is perfectly aligned with what one would expect. Unfortunately, it would be a whole heck of a lot easier to believe that it has any relation to what's going to happen, or were what was originally going to happen, if the rendition of Ahmed Agiza and Mohammed Alzery hadn't happened.

  50. The US should not be able to extradite him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yet, this is the US we are talking of. The US illegally kidnapped people before, with no legal standing. Sweden was one of their accomplices https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/05/cia-rendition-countries-covert-support
    Could they do that with a famous target as Assange? Probably: in the end, they faced no consequences for the illegal renditions post 2001.
    There were many calls to arrest Assange even by US lawmakers and members of government . There were calls for his assassination, both from Fox and CNN, and by other governments as well as the USA too.
    Add to this that the prosecutor in Sweden did not act according to precedent either, by suspiciously refusing to conduct remote interrogation that had been adequate for much serious crimes. Add to that the suspicious conditions of Interpol chasing someone because a consenting partner wanted him to test for HIV.
    Your argument relies on us expecting fair play, and there is no indication that that would have happened 7 years ago. It might happen now, after all the people failed to do shit about WikiLeaks disclosed crimes.

  51. Re:What's he worrying about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just want a honest government that is of the people and for the people. I don't give a fuck what your tribal leaders in the republicans or democrats try to convince you of. They are lying. Wake up, stop listening to the 'media' (This includes that talk radio trash), look at the facts and try to make the world a better place.

  52. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Julian Assange, 47, (03.07.71) has today, Thursday 11 April, been further arrested on behalf of the United States authorities, at 10:53hrs after his arrival at a central London police station. This is an extradition warrant under Section 73 of the Extradition Act. He will appear in custody at Westminster Magistrates' Court later today (Thursday, 11 April)."

  53. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

    The actions in the footage are not crimes under the Laws of Land Warfare as outlined in the various conventions.

    IIRC, there's one part of the video that's questionable. At one point during the action, a vehicle pulls up to load the wounded and is destroyed. Other than that, yes, this was manufactured controversy, and the clip's name "collateral murder" was just click bait.

    --
    What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
  54. Re:Liberals hate democracy? True! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go assassinate Vladimir Putin. A party primary is not an election, and there is no such thing as "rigging" it.

  55. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Phoghat · · Score: 1

    "Nobody with half a brain accused him of Treason. He's not a US citizen, he can't commit treason against the US," So then, why is the US extraditing him?

    --
    Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
  56. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Phoghat · · Score: 1

    missing at least some of the facts

    --
    Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
  57. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    looking forward to see what the US does to him.

  58. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are a proven liar. You just proved you are a liar yourself.

    http://news.met.police.uk/news/update-arrest-of-julian-assange-365565

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/11/world/europe/julian-assange-wikileaks-ecuador-embassy.html

    But the US had already expressed interest in extradition long ago. Everybody knew this. Why would you even try to assert that this wasn't about US extradition? It was already well established that the US desired extradition by US officials own statements. Did you think you were going to fool someone?

  59. Re: What's he worrying about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure, you believe what your partisan bias inclines you towards, just like you were inclined to rant that Obama locked up children en masse as the default policy enough that you ranted about it while claiming you ended it. The same week you fired half your homeland security leadership be abuse they wouldn't reinstitute the policy.

    Oh wait no, that was your incompetent glorious leader.

    Look, I get it, you are a total shill. But can't you find a figurehead that isn't suffering from rapid onset dementia?

  60. Good. He is an enemy of the state. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny how how wikileaks doesnt target certain states.

    1. Re:Good. He is an enemy of the state. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone knows Wikileaks is an extension of the communist left states in Asia.

    2. Re:Good. He is an enemy of the state. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assange was Putin's fuck buddy on Tuesdays, when Trump had to do something with Melania to avoid divorce proceedings.

  61. Got nothing to do with Hillary by rsilvergun · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If it did then helping Trump would have paid off. He exposed financial records of a boatload of rich and powerful. In America that didn't really matter but the tax man in Europe and Asia took notice. This isn't about which members of the oligarchy he pissed off. The oligarchy takes care of their own. The 1% is like the mob or any other form of organized crime. Mess with one and you've messed with them all, and a hot like Assanage did was never gonna be forgiven.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Got nothing to do with Hillary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump is 'rich and powerful', too.

  62. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by DrSpock11 · · Score: 0

    It's cute that you think the US intelligence apparatus can charge people with crimes.

  63. She'd have done the same thing Trump will do by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    They're both members of the ruling class. And besides, if it's one thing The Mueller investigation did do it's show us Trump has a complete lack of gratitude for the folks who helped put him where he is.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:She'd have done the same thing Trump will do by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      If there's one thing the Mueller investigation showed today, it's that enough info has been uncovered that Obama's corrupt legal counsel has been indicted.

      The Mueller report might reveal a number of interesting things about Democratic activities during the 2016 campaign. The whole premise of the special counsel could unravel in a really messy way for the Democrats.

    2. Re:She'd have done the same thing Trump will do by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Trump's gratitude has always been fleeting because he's always been about what can you do for me now. He's most likely a sociopath and has trouble seeing people as anything more than tools to be used and discarded when they are no longer convenient. His business career is littered with the (metaphorical) bodies of the partners that he has betrayed. Leaving someone else holding the bag is his signature move.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
  64. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    Nobody with half a brain accused him of Treason. He's not a US citizen, he can't commit treason against the US, he has no expectation of loyalty to it.

    That's immaterial. The federal government has so many lawyers that it can invent whatever pretext it feels like to charge anyone in the world, jurisdiction-shop for a compliant judge to sign off on the deal, and go after that person.

    Recall that Assange was originally charged with rape in Sweden, rather than treason against what is to him a foreign country. Whatever happened to that one?

  65. Re: What's he worrying about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That was totally obvious to all non morons from the very start.

  66. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US has never asked anyone to arrest him with the intention of extraditing him.

    Your overall post is well put and I am sure it applies to 99% of situations, but, you cannot know this - Assange is not 99% of situations, there will have been many secret discussions hardly anyone knows about.

    We have nothing we can extradite him for.

    Perhaps not you personally.

  67. Complicated Situation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I support what Julian Assange has done as a news publisher. He should not be in any trouble for that. My issue is with his specific behavior with the whole detainment. We don't know anything about why he's being arrested. It's probable that the whole rape thing was governments finding something to silence him, but we don't know.

    It's also dishonest to say he has been detained, when he was actually avoiding detainment. It's likely that had he turned himself in earlier or faced the charges against him, he would have been free long ago. We simply don't have enough information and the campaign to free him hasn't presented evidence that there was a global conspiracy to make him disappear.

    Sadly, I think his paranoia got the best of him and he has suffered more because of that than any government conspiracy. I could be wrong though. If he disappears or something similar, his paranoia was justified. What I suspect is that he'll face the penalty for skipping bail and spend some time in jail, most likely in the UK. Only observation of what happens now can answer any of these questions.

  68. Ha-fucking-ha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nuff said

  69. Liberals = shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pointing out a rigged election in the US makes liberals call you a Russian puppet?

    My point stands. Liberals have seen the DNC rig an election and do nothing but make excuses for it being ok.

    Remember Bush 2000? They claimed election rigged
    Remember Trump 2016? They claimed Russia rigged election
    Remember DNC primary 2016? It actually WAS rigged and they don't care

    Kind of funny how if the wrong person loses it must be rigged, but if the right person wins the rigging doesn't matter.

    Liberals HATE free and fair elections. And call you a Russian troll in attempt to abridge your freedom of speech for pointing it out.
    Liberals = shit

    1. Re:Liberals = shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fuck off with your fake ass persecution complex there is nothing worthwhile in your shit stained brain

    2. Re:Liberals = shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump preemptively stated that if he lost it would be because the election had been rigged.

  70. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by bungo · · Score: 1

    But if you are a citizen of a foreign nation, like Assange, even if that nation is closely allied with the US. You are under no obligation at all to protect that information.

    If you are a citizen of a foreign nation, and have security clearance that also provides clearance for the US military, then you also can be criminally liable.

    Secure document handling rules state that if you are in possession of documents that you do not have the clearance needed to be in possession of the documents, then you are committing a violation. If I was under such a clearance, and even if the documents were released by someone else, but I had them in my possession, then I would have a security violation. If I had a copy of the Wikileaks documents, and not cleared to have them, then I would be in trouble.

    --
    "The best part? I became an ordained minister while not wearing pants." -- CleverNickName
  71. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 2

    Given he's now a proven flight risk I suspect his chances of bail while all this drags on through the appeals courts (which has taken years in other high profile cases) are pretty slim, so even if he ultimately prevails and avoids extradition it's likely to be quite some time before he's getting out of custody.

    In the USA, yes, he would probably be denied bail or subject to very stringent monitoring with an electronic ankle bracelet. In Sweden? I don't know. I'm hearing that people in Norway are apparently already feeling sorry for their biggest mass murderer in history who might, maybe, have to stay locked up for 25 years. Norway is not Sweden but it's probably not all that different either, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Swedes granted bail and Assange found a way to sneak into Russia.

  72. Personal hygiene matters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If he was not such a dirty piece of shit he would not have been evicted.

  73. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by DrXym · · Score: 1

    We have nothing we can extradite him for.

    So the US doesn't have laws for interfering with an election, computer fraud and abuse, theft of data, espionage or being an accessory to any of those things?

    Interesting.

    I guess Assange will simply walk free then.

  74. Sorry Kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Assange is a dead man walking. He embarrassed the powers that be. A trial would be to revealing of the reality of the world. So he will die. How he dies is hard to say. Plane crash maybe. Shot dead by a madman full of alleged moral outrage. He is a lose end and will be snipped from the land of the living. He is allegedly having psychological problems so a suspicious suicide. The ways an enemy of the state can die are many.

  75. man, i hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    he does not have to return some vhs tapes to blockbuster

    imagine the fees after 7 years

  76. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by DrXym · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Planet Delusion. Currently inhabited by some of his most delusional supporters. People who think that pretending to be a "journalist" is a shield against things that are federal crimes in the US.

  77. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love it when the "I happen to be an expert on this subject" snakes get immediately proven wrong.

  78. Re: Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because a bunch of plwerful people don't like freedom

  79. Dumbass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Assange had the support of the left wing because he released details of how the US killed civilians in the Iraq war and, and details of how it peddled influence across the world. The right wing hated him because they like war, and hate anyone who reveals the horrors of it.

    Then he released Hilary's emails. The left wing decided he was a dumbass and helped Trump get elected. The right wing might like that he released the Hilary emails, but they never would forgive him for that they considered traitorous.

    Politics matter Julian. Pick a side, dummy. You can't piss off EVERYONE.

  80. Advocacy For Freedom by MrKaos · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The arrest of Assange demonstrates our freedom to criticize the state to evolve our culture is over. Dissent will not be tolerated and any illusion of First world freedom is a myth concocted to keep us in the mindset of slaves to interest rates on housing loans.

    I've been studying the changes to freedom of speech and association laws in the US, UK, Canada (well the english half), Australia and, NZ. I've written hundreds of pages of submissions about Anti-terrorism law, its structure and wording to try to do anything I could to fight to preserve the freedom we have left and failed 95% of the time.

    Knowing these laws, I can certainly say that I fear for Assange if he is charged under them. The absolute power the state has over an individual in that circumstance is terrifying and was previously reserved for those conducting espionage. Activism, such as what Assange has conducted, threatens the status quo so much it must be crushed with an iron fist. Soviet style.

    In the first double bind of this law, the state assumes control of all evidence that can defend you which you are responsible for presenting. Even people witnessing an arrest and telling a family member can be charged and sentenced to 5 years jail. All sentences are strict liability so magistrates have no authority to vary time served. These laws are designed to destroy lives.

    I only spend hundreds of hours doing what I do, these people give up everything trying to preserve our freedom. Whistle blowers are heros. More so, what does it tell us that more of these whistle blowers are from military and intelligence services. Snowden, Manning and lessor known people like Annie Machon (UK), David Shayler (UK) and Susan Lindauer (US) were all former intelligence agents trying to tell us the mess being made with these laws. Shayler died whilst arrested under these laws and an attempt was made to chemically lobotomize Lindauer and attack her mental health to destroy her reputation. Machon was the only one who refused to face arrest which has preserved her mental health.

    The pages of law, in our first world countries, dictating how technology can be used to suppress the populace has grown from nothing in 2001 to well over 2400 pages in 2019, constitutionally adjusted to suit each nation. That's just the stuff I've read, there were bills I missed.

    Lindauer suggests that these laws are lifted from the Soviet criminal code and looking at them it's not hard to believe it. I had to lobby against the power to body cavity search minors as young as 8 yrs as unacceptable for a first world democracy, the government changed it to 14.

    Knowing this makes our countries a parody of the freedoms they once stood for.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    1. Re:Advocacy For Freedom by ledow · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Shayler died whilst arrested under these laws"

      Eh? I think you might want to check that. He's still around.
        And Machon was dating Shayler at the time.

      The other you mentioned is a dubious telling of her tale. It's almost like you cherry-picked three people, two of whom acted together, the other of whom is mentally unstable but quite clearly still around and airing her views on Russian TV, and held them up as a beacon of hero worship.

      As an outsider, with no real interest or research, I'll happily write all three off as credible witnesses. The first two are 9/11 truthers, claiming all kinds of nonsense, despite the fact that neither have worked for government since the mid 90's. Shayler's a bit of a nutter, who represented himself in court (always a tell of a true idiot) and failed miserably. Hell, he follows David Icke, ffs.

      Just because you "worked for intelligence services" does not mean that you are credible... Hell I know someone who can say exactly that... they book flights for Middle East diplomats. That's their entire job. It's literally just an office job, with a security badge. And they're still subject to the Official Secrets Act just the same.

      Sorry, but you've failed at the first hurdle... associating yourself with people less credible than my local barber. There's a reason why, when a whack-job scientist makes stupendous claims, reputable scientists keep their distance. This is no different.

      I have no doubt that laws are cracking down on this - we're in a different world, technologically, the last 20-30 years. I'd be disappointed if there *wasn't* 2400 pages of technology laws formed in the last 18 years. I'd seriously question what the courts and ministers have been doing otherwise. But that these people are wandering around still talking tripe shows you one thing - the government really doesn't care and isn't at all afraid about you hearing what they have to say. The reason for that is clear... they are all just a bit screw-loose.

      I don't doubt there are violations. I don't doubt that there's stuff to be whistleblown. I don't doubt that there's a lot we don't know and wouldn't approve of it we did. I'm certain of all those. I guarantee you that there's something hidden which, if revealed, would cause absolute uproar among the populace, and even myself.

      But I'm equally certain that not one thing from Wikileaks, Assange, Manning or Snowden, or any of those you mentioned has done anything at all whatsoever to reveal something horrifyingly terrible enough to make people revolt. It was all stuff we either knew, suspected or inferred. All they did was show you that such public whistleblowers are all from the same mindset, and that what they sacrifice their freedom to whistleblow just isn't worth it in the end - nobody is up in arms about any of it.

      A credible whistleblower would strive to be as anonymous as possible, they would not make public appearances, they would not harp on about things they have no personal knowledge of, they would provide evidence which - on its own - does not need explanation and which generates shock and outrage just by its mere existence.

      You know what I want? ANYONE involved in the government side of the Guantanamo stuff to come forward and speak against the government. Even one person. The detainment, justice procedure, behaviour and continued presence there is unbelievably illegal. The general populace? Meh, they don't even care any more. Half of them don't even realise it still exists.

      There's plenty of stuff to get disgusted about. But I can't say that *anything* the people mentioned here ever revealed was worth all that uproar, years of detention, fleeing to Russia, etc. for them, let alone for them to do it so I could "hear" about these things.

    2. Re:Advocacy For Freedom by tinkerton · · Score: 2

      Theresa May has announced new plans, saying the era of self regulation is over - and it's for the children:
      https://www.facebook.com/10dow...
      We're entering a new era of censorship. It will be called 'not censorship, just ...'
      as in just deranking, demonetizing, deplatforming, anti-hatespeech, anti-fake news. anti-russian-disinformation, anti-things-which-sow-dissent.

      The combination of centralisation of power, surveillance, censorship , PR and secrecy has to go wrong , simply because independent of intent you're removing balancing factors out of the system.

    3. Re:Advocacy For Freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dissent will not be tolerated and any illusion of First world freedom is a myth concocted to keep us in the mindset of slaves to interest rates on housing loans.

      Don't buy a house, then. You have the freedom to do that thing. Quit your job. Go on a road trip. Cross state lines freely. Come and go from the country. Picket the courthouse because you don't like the cut of their jib.

      I mean, maybe `freedom' in the US isn't everything you personally want it to be, but I think that the claim that it is a myth may be a bit of an overstatement. Just ask any North Koreans.

    4. Re:Advocacy For Freedom by belthize · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what you're looking at but your ability to dissent is greater now than it ever was. There were certain things you couldn't even dream of saying 50 years ago. 40 years ago (1970s) Assange would have been dead already.

      I'm not implying things are good or we should be happy but but to say it's worse than in years past is willfully ignoring the past. For instance you think it's unacceptable to do a body cavity search for a minor as young as 14, and I agree, but before that there was no limitation. So don't confuse the limitation being less than you'd prefer with no limitation.

    5. Re:Advocacy For Freedom by MrKaos · · Score: 2

      Eh? I think you might want to check that. He's still around. And Machon was dating Shayler at the time.

      Yes, they were. It was in one of Machon's lectures that she reveal he ended up with a Christ complex and committed suicide, IIRC. So you're saying it was an attempt and he is still locked up?

      And you wonder why Assange didn't want to come under either UK or US control.

      two of whom acted together, the other of whom is mentally unstable

      If you ever read these laws I think you would understand why someone would become that way after being subjected to them. Whilst your response is appealing as a low cognitive solution to the situation that afflicts our culture, the problem with it is it promotes the state of apathy that perpetuates it.

      I have very little doubt that anyone subjected to these laws will be stressed to the point of a mental breakdown. That is because these laws are so outrageous and onerous the acts that are possible under them don't belong in western democracy. They are the very thing we've be told our democracy is against.

      I'd be disappointed if there *wasn't* 2400 pages of technology laws formed in the last 18 years.

      I didn't say they were technology laws, I said how technology can be used. Used to extend the arrest opportunities and to create a mass surveillance system at taxpayers expense. Perhaps you're happy with it because you have a slave's mindset?

      Take freedom away, you crush innovation and end up with a stagnant society that eventually collapses. The Soviet Union already taught us that this kind of stagnation and corruption means the state *will* fail because it is internally weak. You don't end up with capitalism or communism but feudalism, like in the middle ages.

      But I'm equally certain that not one thing from Wikileaks, Assange, Manning or Snowden, or any of those you mentioned has done anything at all whatsoever to reveal something horrifyingly terrible enough to make people revolt.

      Alternatively it's because any sane person would fear the consequence of being subjected to those law so they learn to keep their mouth shut.

      It was all stuff we either knew, suspected or inferred.

      So you did nothing and now you use it as an excuse for apathy.

      All they did was show you that such public whistleblowers are all from the same mindset, and that what they sacrifice their freedom to whistleblow just isn't worth it in the end - nobody is up in arms about any of it.

      This looks a lot like you're afraid and are deluding yourself. I suppose staying ignorant to what is legal and contra to western values of individual freedom is one way of handling the situation. All it really means is that you aren't really dealing with the reality of society. It takes knowledge and educating yourself to stay free and I don't really care if you are a slave.

      You know what I want?

      You want someone to rescue you

      The general populace? Meh, they don't even care any more.

      Which is why no one is going to.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  81. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As to Assange, he cannot be held criminally liable for any of the classified data leaked to Wikileaks and published by him on the site. He never agreed to protect the information from release. The traitors that released it, Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden are the ones facing criminal charges, as they both signed lawful contracts to protect the secrets of this nation.

    It's cute that people still think the US intelligence apparatus follow any sort of rules or laws.

    It's really cute that some people think that you can publish Secret documents from any nation and be revered as some sort of untouchable saint, completely above the laws of earth. People have enjoyed polonium cocktails for less.

    Meanwhile, Slashdotlawyers should probably read this https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/1...

    Better call the DOJ to let them know that they can't do that.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  82. NY Times releases classified leaks all the time by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    Anybody remember Pentagon Papers? Then there was the Bay of Pigs.

    More recently, NYT and other other leftist MSM have released mountains of classified leaks to smear Trump.

    Why should wikileaks be treated differently?

    1. Re:NY Times releases classified leaks all the time by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Because they went after the left and veered from the message the media was publishing that day. Assange was fine during the Bush era, not so good during Obama's tenure. Even today CNN is trying to pin this one on Trump, even though Wikileaks proper has been pretty much dead for 7 years (Clinton and Manning releases were only re-published on Wikileaks).

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    2. Re:NY Times releases classified leaks all the time by Anubis+IV · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are several big differences that I'm aware of:
      1) It sounds like Assange is being accused of actively soliciting classified data, which is crossing the line, legally speaking, whereas the NYT and other publications were not accused of doing so. They've received classified documents, but they don't encourage people to steal documents, nor do they walk their sources through the steps necessary to exfiltrate classified data, both of which Assange is being accused of, from what I can gather.

      2) Whereas Ellsberg (and Snowden) did his due diligence by raising concerns with his superiors in an attempt to resolve the issues internally before going public, Manning made no such attempt. Likewise, whereas there were specific concerns that Ellsberg (and Snowden) hoped could be resolved by making those concerns public, Manning seemingly had no awareness of the contents of the data he exfiltrated, nor of any specific threat to the public's wellbeing. Those distinctions are both legally and morally important when drawing the line between "whistleblowers" and "leakers". Whistleblowing is a final step that is taken in the public interest in response to a specific threat after all other avenues have been exhausted. Leaking is something that anyone can do at any time for any reason. As such there are good reasons why the one is (at least somewhat) protected, while the other is not.

      3) The NYT (and the multitude of other papers that published content from the Papers, as well as those reporting on Snowden's data) exercised editorial discretion in what they actually published. It's estimated that they only printed 5% of the Papers' actual contents. In contrast, wantonly dumping classified leaks online without fully vetting them, as Wikileaks has done numerous times with Manning's data, demonstrates a gross disregard for the lives, safety, and property of those who may be affected. Legally, this may or may not make a difference (I don't know either way), but morally it's reprehensible.

      All of which is to say, while I think that Assange and Wikileaks have acted reprehensibly, I also think the world needs something like Wikileaks, or at the very least a free and unrestrained press. Likewise, while I think that Manning failed to do his duty both as a service member and a "whistleblower", I think there are others who have faithfully fulfilled their legal and/or moral obligations, such as Ellsberg and quite possibly Snowden.

    3. Re:NY Times releases classified leaks all the time by guacamole · · Score: 1

      He is not going to be charged with releasing materials that simply fell on his lap. He will be investigated for, and probably charged for a conspiracy with Manning and possibly with Russian agents to obtain and release politically damaging documents. There is a big difference there. NYT reporters do not break into private or government offices to obtain the information that was later released.

  83. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    We have nothing we can extradite him for.

    So the US doesn't have laws for interfering with an election, computer fraud and abuse, theft of data, espionage or being an accessory to any of those things?

    Interesting.

    I guess Assange will simply walk free then.

    People from foreign nations are completely above the law here in the USA.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  84. Evil never rests by easyTree · · Score: 1

    Just saying...

  85. Re:What's he worrying about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Brennan, Clapper, Comey, Yates, McCabe, Strzok, and maybe even Obama himself might be getting measured for orange jumpsuits right now.

    Tell that crap on Faux News..

  86. You misspelled "Trump" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Metropolitan Police said in a statement that he was "further arrested" on his arrival at a London police station on behalf of United States authorities, who have issued an extradition warrant."

    https://www.local10.com/news/international/julian-assange-arrested-at-ecuadorian-embassy-in-london

    We already know Assange worked with the Trump campaign. He may have decided to go public with what he knows and is now being disappeared.

  87. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been reading Slashdot for years and still don't understand the moderation system.

    How exactly did this get moderated to +5 insightful? Is this some kinda joke I'm not understanding?

  88. Re: Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by walterbyrd · · Score: 3, Informative

    Is that supposed to be a crime or something? MSM does that all the time.

  89. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by walterbyrd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1) Assange is not a US citizen, and is not subject to US laws.

    2) Assange does not have a security clearance. He has never promised to keep US secrets. And there is no expectation that he keep US secrets.

    3) MSM publishes classified leaks all time. Do you think the MSM has some special rights?

    4) Is Assange "pretending" to be a journalist? Has he called himself that? What exactly makes somebody a real journalist?

  90. too big by Max_W · · Score: 1

    I think Julian will be free in a year or, probably, less, similar to Bradley Manning. He is too big to be kept in a prison.

    Who know the US chief prosecutor's name? No one, except some aficionados. But Assange is known all over the world, he is a cultural icon, a personage of historical, or even biblical scale.

    1. Re:too big by guacamole · · Score: 1

      Manning's sentence was commuted by Obama. On the other hand, it's hard to believe that Trump would pardon Assange. Such an action would raise a whole lot of eyebrows at Fox News who happens Trump's only big-media supporters, and they have been calling for Assange's head for a long time now.

  91. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    Those laws apply to US citizens.

    Also, the MSM publishes classified leaks all the time.

  92. Re: Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So we can treat him as an enemy combatant. I hope he likes getting waterboarded.

  93. Re: Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like the New York Times peddling the Pentagon Papers?

  94. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Assuming he would get a fair trial, which is highly unlikely. If he isn't locked up in Gitmo or gets an "accident" during his trip the "trial" will be secret because the matters discussed are "state secrets", even if they have been published on Wikileaks and many newspapers.

  95. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They just lock you up without any trial.

  96. Sadly this is wrong by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 5, Informative

    The US has never asked anyone to arrest him with the intention of extraditing him.

    Sadly the facts have now overtaken your careful and well-reasoned argument. The US has requested his extradition on computer hacking charges for helping Manning.

    1. Re:Sadly this is wrong by Perl-Pusher · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If I had points I would mod you up. You are correct the indictment is for hacking. Seems helped Manning hack a password for the SPIPRNET Though manning had access to TS Level information it is compartmentalized and your not just able to get data from the State Department and other entities. Assange helped him by providing information how to do it. Thus becoming a co-conspirator to the hacking. The indictment is floating around various news sites for anyone to see.

  97. Re: Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No they simply have them killed.

  98. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since when are Australian citizens living in Australia subject to US federal law?

  99. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US has never asked anyone to arrest him with the intention of extraditing him. We have nothing we can extradite him for.

    While this is true, leaks show Hillary literally tried to drone-strike him while secretary of state.

  100. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by William+Baric · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What you are saying confirms that governments, the US government in particular, do whatever they please without having to follow any kind of law. It confirms that power and violence are the only "laws". So why should we follow those laws? Why can't we use violence to fight whoever we don't like?

  101. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Legally you are in a gray area and it depends on the treaties and agreements with other governments. Because of the way international law works, it doesn't matter where he commits the offense, if they go to extradition countries that observe US law in certain circumstances (national defense reasons etc) they are screwed.

    Assange kept screwing over his hosts and burning bridges. He unfortunately got what he deserved. This might be a limited point of view on my part, but that is in line with all the news I've read and heard.

  102. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Recall that Assange was originally charged with rape in Sweden,

    No, it never happened. He was interviewed, told he could leave the country, and later, under a new politically-motivated prosecutor, asked to return for further questioning. He was never charged with anything.

  103. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by DrXym · · Score: 1

    Nope. You can be indicted for those things regardless of your nationality or where you committed the crimes providing the crimes are in US jurisdiction. Plenty of people have been extradited to the US from countries where they have extradition treaties.

  104. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by DrXym · · Score: 1

    When they commit crimes under US federal law subject to US jurisdiction and are stupid enough to be in countries with extradition treaties to the US. That's when.

  105. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where are you gathering your information on litigation for intelligence-related issues? I'd love to read more so I can be better prepared when similar situations arise.

  106. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He's not wrong, in that they're not charging Assange with treason or with receiving classified materials.

    They've made up charges, saying he "hacked" a classified system with Bradley Manning, and the two of them "hacked a password" as part of a conspiracy to retrieve classified documents.

    Yes, seriously, Assange is being charged with conspiracy to hack a password. It's the only way they could come up with to extradite him.

  107. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So instead, you get someone to claim rape, and then they guy is completley fucked. Oh by the way, once your done plz extradite to our land where we can then prosecute because he touched our soil so enemy combatant. kthx

    There are lots of way to delete people. This is one of the more political ways to do it. Russia does it a more direct and different way.

    He's getting extradited, and then deaded or locked up forever because basically 'the man' wants it. A good example for anyone getting out of line.

  108. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by DrXym · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Somebody needs to read up on jurisdiction and extradition. Being beyond a nation's borders, or of a different nationality does not mean you cannot commit a crime and be subject to justice in that nation.

  109. He told the truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When Assange entered the embassy the U.K. and Obama administration said he was only wanted for questioning about the two women. But clearly now we see that was a lie just as Assange said.

    He was telling the Truth.

  110. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >There is literally nothing we can extradite him for.

    Well, that didn't age well...

    Worth noting he is being extradited for helping Chelsea Manning, who was pardoned by a Democrat president, and widely considered a hero among blue haired abortionists and assorted trannys, so if Chelsea Manning is a hero, how can you be against Julian Assange since his charges literally stem from Manning's action? Oh right, the Democrats are the most corrupt two faced swine on Earth.

  111. Re: What's he worrying about? by bobbied · · Score: 2

    Sure, you believe what your partisan bias inclines you towards, just like you were inclined to rant that Obama locked up children en masse as the default policy enough that you ranted about it while claiming you ended it. The same week you fired half your homeland security leadership be abuse they wouldn't reinstitute the policy.

    Oh wait no, that was your incompetent glorious leader.

    Look, I get it, you are a total shill. But can't you find a figurehead that isn't suffering from rapid onset dementia?

    And I'm a total shill?

    I at last recognize my bias and am aware of the facts here through independent investigation (I've actually listened to most of the public testimony of the guys I name and have looked at the primary sources we have available). You though, don't seem to be aware of even the basic facts about what happened during the 2016 campaign. But as being a shill, let's investigate your claim...

    Would a "total shill" be telling you that they don't expect this to rise very high in the Obama administration? The only real political appointee I've named in Brennon as CIA director, everybody else I'd expect are lower level career types. And I'm not holding my breath on any of these. Clearly Comey and McCabe are in legal trouble for lying to congress, Stroke and Page may get caught up in that mess. Comey mishandled classified information, by his own admission, and where that's likely only going to result in his loosing his clearances, which he doesn't have now anyway, and possibly a criminal conviction if things go badly but I doubt it will result in prison time. The FISA abuse allegations are what really matters here though, and they only really matter politically.

    Now if that's what a total shill would be saying, unlike Hanity and Limbaugh who are clearly saying this will implicate people high in the Obama administration, political appointees, if not Obama himself, then I wonder about your objectivity... I've never been a "Lock her up" type, I know how this field is striped and where I think Hillary did mishandle classified information, and Comey let her off when he should not have, I NEVER thought she'd be locked up or even handcuffed. All I ever said was that she should loose her security clearances, which, to be fair, would happen anyway in time. Personally I feel it was a waste of time, but I get the political impact of that chant..

    So, where I'm obviously biased, I don't think I'm the "total shill" here..

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  112. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Killall+-9+Bash · · Score: 1

    Because, forgive me if I'm wrong, he was demanded by the USA's congresscritters for "treason" after the Apache helicopter murderers' footage was released.

    Is that the one where the Iraqi journalists and their bodyguards get gunned down? The one that was on LiveLeak first?

    --
    "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
  113. Ask Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obama interfered with foreign elections, especially Israel. I guess you are calling for him to be arrested and prosecuted?

    lol. Liberals are so stupid, they claim stuff is a crime that their own heroes have committed hundreds of times and they don't even know it.

    1. Re:Ask Obama by DrXym · · Score: 1

      Straw men and tu quoque arguments.

    2. Re:Ask Obama by Killall+-9+Bash · · Score: 1

      Die in a fire... and when you get to Hell, tell the Devil all about the logical fallacies he's making.

      --
      "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
    3. Re:Ask Obama by DrXym · · Score: 1

      Thanks for that. And it still won't be a valid argument to the subject in question.

  114. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funnily enough, the US has placed an extradition request, as confirmed now by the UK metropolitan police. So I'm afraid you are wrong.

    Trump wants to bring him to the US and give him a medal for his distinguished service (to get him elected) in collusion with the Russians. That's it.

    The Swedish no longer want him.

  115. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by noodler · · Score: 2

    What a joke.
    The US does as it likes and you, my friend, are its tool.
    The system you believe in and are so vocal in describing is a farce that is applied only when it gives the wanted results.

  116. Re:What's he worrying about? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    Nobody is going to see the inside of a courtroom. The fact was that the Trump campaign and Russian officials and representatives were in communication. So far as I can see, the job of any intelligence agency is to monitor the activities of foreign agents. The fact that Trump surrounded himself with idiots who didn't think anyone in the signal agencies would notice them being chatted up by Russians is not an indictment on those agencies. Perhaps someone should consider why Trump surrounded himself with such a pack of simpering treacherous halfwits. I mean, they're crooks, maybe traitors, but they are also some of the most jaw droppingly stupid people one could imagine encountering.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  117. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1) Assange is not a US citizen, and is not subject to US laws.

    2) Assange does not have a security clearance. He has never promised to keep US secrets. And there is no expectation that he keep US secrets.

    3) MSM publishes classified leaks all time. Do you think the MSM has some special rights?

    4) Is Assange "pretending" to be a journalist? Has he called himself that? What exactly makes somebody a real journalist?

    True. IANAL, but a more plausible charge would be a conspiracy charge based on his actions with Manning. His emails, any phone conversation, chats, etc. would most probably have gone through US servers as well as had direct contacts with Manning in the US, thus establishing a nexus and US jurisdiction over his actions. It's a tenuous link but could be what is used to bring hm to trial or at least get extradition. What happens afterwards is up to the courts.

    I doubt Trump would even consider a pardon. This isn't about Hillary but Manning, and I doubt his supporters, or more importantly the Trump Network, also known as Fox News, would look kindly on what would be spun as a pardon for someone who helped leak military secrets, and thus supported treason. Trump, if anything, is very careful not to piss off his core supporters or Fox News.

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  118. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by tinkerton · · Score: 1

    They do like to wrap it in official stamps though:
    https://www.justice.gov/usao-e...

  119. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think at minimum they could at least attempt to charge him with trafficking in stolen property/data.

    An analogy in the grandest of Slashdot traditions. Say someone did a hit and run, went home and put their damaged car in the garage. Let's say I'm convinced he's about to get away with it and to prevent that I break into his garage, take the car and turn it over to the cops. Now what I did may be the moral thing in many eyes, but it doesn't change the fact that I committed breaking and entering and grand theft auto and absolutely could be charged, tried, convicted and sent to prison over it.

  120. Wikileaks bad because....they're not greedy? by Uberbah · · Score: 0

    It's obvious that journalism needs new economic models, but WikiLeaks is NOT one of them.

    What would you prefer - for Assange to be like Russia Madcow, who's paid $30,000 a day to lie to her viewers?

    There was a good idea under there, but it was buried so deeply and Assange got so far away from any form of actual journalism that the cart got in front of the horse.

    Baseless tautology/character assassination, and the rest of your post continues in the same vien. Assange's arrest proves once and for all that the rape charges were always a farce, that it was always a pretext to get Assange into US custody, and it's time for his haters to eat shit. Same as the Russiagaters need to eat shit now that Mueller has wrapped his investigation with there being no collusion between Trump and Russia.

    1. Re:Wikileaks bad because....they're not greedy? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Assange's arrest proves once and for all that the rape charges were always a farce, that it was always a pretext to get Assange into US custody

      Sadly no, it's quite possible that the rape charges had a grounded basis in reality and that there were also plans by America to seek extradition.

      Today's events have however addressed the allegations that people fearing an extradition attempt by the US are conspiracy theorists. They may or may not have been but they were clearly bloody right.

  121. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Catiline · · Score: 2

    The US has never asked anyone to arrest him with the intention of extraditing him. We have nothing we can extradite him for. ... There is literally nothing we can extradite him for. He did not violate any US law that he is subject to.

    Not entirely true. Assange has, in fact, been offically charged with aiding Manning in cracking passwords on classified government computers, not simply publishing the documents provided to wikileaks. Assuming the facts as presented by the prosecutor are correct, this hacking is the sort of crime which can be laid against anyone, regardless of nationality.

  122. Re: Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are no "enamy cumbatnos" this is something the US is using instead of "civilians" when the US military commits war crimes.

  123. Assange = Freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US has serious corruption issues. It is all too easy to hide needed information from the public by claiming national security as an excuse. The American public should be able to see and hear everything that any government employee or agency does in detail. I suspect that having all military abilities wide open for the world to see it would assure our safety. After all, if you are a Russian official you just might get the notion that the US really lacks strength and that could easily trigger a nuclear war. If our deepest secrets were revealed it does not tend to aid our enemies simply because a new weapon or technology takes years to put in place and by the time the enemy caught up we would have moved into a much different and superior technology. In a way it reminds me of the issue in the battery industry. Every week or two it seems that there is an advance in battery technology. Yet it takes several years to fund and build a facility to actually produce these batteries. Investors don't tend to like a situation in which a new multi billion dollar investment just might be useless due to a better battery being developed before they can even get into production. Imagine if we could see all the alternatives and the due date of the public arrival of the new battery would take place. You might decide to not buy an electric car until the new system is in place. Or you just might get a great price on an electric vehicle because sales are way down as people wait for the new technology. The free flow of information is vital both in industry and in government. Mr. Assange was on the right side in the fight for freedom.

  124. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by thegarbz · · Score: 0

    Let's brake down your statement and the GPs. You asserted that the US requesting extradition means the GP was wrong. Let's look at this:

    The US has never asked anyone to arrest him with the intention of extraditing him.

    Correct, he was arrested for other reasons

    We have nothing we can extradite him for.

    Correct, just because the request went through doesn't mean it will be fulfilled or deemed lawful.

    But Extradition to the US is out of the question. There is literally nothing we can extradite him for. He did not violate any US law that he is subject to.

    Correct and just a repeat from the above.

    So the GP is not wrong, but since we're an international slide we'll forgive the misinterpretation of the english nuances.

  125. Time for Assange haters to eat shit by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    Even now, you can see the same old character assassination and word salads being tossed at Assange, when he is arrested and the immediate talk is of extraditing him to the United States, NOT SWEDEN. This whole farce was nothing but a pretext to get him in US custody so he can be prosecuted for being a journalist. I hope people in the press that have spent years sneering and smearing at Assange find their own dumb asses indicted the next time they publish classified information that is leaked to them.

    Like Russiagaters after the Mueller report, and Iraq war superfans after no WMD's were found, it's time for you to not just apologize for ten years of bullshit, but eat it up with a spoon.

    1. Re:Time for Assange haters to eat shit by ledow · · Score: 1

      When the Mueller report is published in full, unredacted, then you can be that smarmy.

      WMD were NEVER present - we all knew that. No evidence was ever presented, and it was used as an excuse.

      And nobody every said the US wouldn't extradite. They said they aren't going to extradite him just to try to assassinate him or imprison him indefinitely (which is what Assange-fans believed).

      Here's a tip: Break US law, encouraging people to break into US security systems to obtain top secret data, and then publish everything you find on the US in that data to the world... it's gonna hurt. No country in the world is going to just let that pass, wherever you're based. If you're American, it's treason, if you're not, you're a spy. It's quite simple.

      If the only way to "win" your argument is to polarise the opinions of others to the extreme edge and pretend that's what "everyone" said, then you go on enjoying winning.

      P.S. At least one of the Sweden charges is still open, still within its statute of limitations, and could now be re-opened. Whoops!

    2. Re:Time for Assange haters to eat shit by Cederic · · Score: 1

      When the Mueller report is published in full, unredacted, then you can be that smarmy.

      Shit, is that the new narrative?

      As someone not in the US or Russia can't you cunts just fucking give it a fucking break and talk about something other than Russian fucking collusion for once?

      While you're at it stop interfering with political campaigns in other countries. Fucking Obama trying to fucking skew the UK referendum being one of the more overt attempts of recent times.

    3. Re:Time for Assange haters to eat shit by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      When the Mueller report is published in full, unredacted, then you can be that smarmy.

      Nope. I can be that smarmy right now, and for the rest of Russiagater's sad little lives. No charges of collusion, end of story. Sure, the full report may have some mentions of shady financial dealing with everyone from Israel to Bumfuckistan - but those issues were ignored by Democrats while they were busy reanimating Joe McCarthy's rotting corpse - to attack Donald Trump from the right.

      WMD were NEVER present - we all knew that. No evidence was ever presented, and it was used as an excuse.

      Powell is verklempt that you forgot the little dog and pony show he put on for the UN. Yes, evidence was presented - faked evidence, but it was presented nonetheless.

      Here's a tip: Break US law, encouraging people to break into US security systems to obtain top secret data, and then publish everything you find on the US in that data to the world... it's gonna hurt. No country in the world is going to just let that pass, wherever you're based. If you're American, it's treason, if you're not, you're a spy. It's quite simple.

      Another tip: that's quite simply authoritarian horseshit, on three levels. First, journalists encourage their sources to provide more information all the time. Two, the Obama Administration had this same "information" eight years ago, and passed on it because it was so weak. The same Obama Administration that prosecuted more whisteblowers than all previous presidents combined under the Espionage Act, times two. Finally, because none of the war criminals and torturers had to suffer any consequences for any of their actions. Anyone who squawks about unathorized intrusions while people who authorized beating innocent people to death walk free can go fucking fuck themselves.

      P.S. At least one of the Sweden charges is still open, still within its statute of limitations, and could now be re-opened. Whoops!

      If this was ever actually about rape, Sweden would have taken up Assange offer to promise not to hand him over to the United States in return for his voluntary return to Sweden. Even if Assange was lying about said offer, that would mean Ecuador would no longer have a reason to grant him asylum, meaning Assange would shortly be back in their custody regardless, which Whoops means the space between your ears is packed with excrement. Again.

  126. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Informative

    Apparently, the US does think they have something they can extradite him for, because he's now been arrested under the extradition act [police.uk] on behalf of US authorities.

    I can sue you right now. That doesn't mean I have anything I could sue you for with a hope of winning. Making an extradition request and having it granted are two different things.

    Quite specifically this will have to go through a whole new legal trial since the previous extradition to Sweden was based on a completely different crime, country, and circumstance.

  127. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 0, Troll

    What you are saying confirms that governments, the US government in particular, do whatever they please without having to follow any kind of law. It confirms that power and violence are the only "laws". So why should we follow those laws? Why can't we use violence to fight whoever we don't like?

    You have a very active imagination there, Boris.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  128. Yes, you ARE Pathetic by Uberbah · · Score: 1, Informative

    Assange did good work with Wikileaks, years ago. Then he grew an inflated ego, and (um, literally) screwed around. Rather than face any charges (which, iirc, were never formally filed), he fled.

    Horseshit. Assange always offered to return to Sweden if the government would promise not to use the charges as a pretext to hand him over to the United States, for the crime of being a journalist.

    And guess what this arrest proves, dipshit: Assange was always right, and tools like yourself were always wrong. Or did you not notice the extradition hearing is going to be to the United States, NOT SWEDEN?

    1. Re:Yes, you ARE Pathetic by kenh · · Score: 1

      Or did you not notice the extradition hearing is going to be to the United States, NOT SWEDEN?

      The US is not holding an extradition hearing, the UK removed him from the embassy and is handing him over to US authorities in response to an extradition request from them, dipshit.

      --
      Ken
    2. Re:Yes, you ARE Pathetic by Cederic · · Score: 1

      The UK will hold an extradition hearing.

      I don't think that's strictly required unless the extradition is challenged by the person being extradited, but I'm feeling quite confident that in this instance a challenge will be made.

      So Uberbah's point was very valid and I regret to inform you that despite his username he's not the one looking like a dipshit.

    3. Re:Yes, you ARE Pathetic by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      No distinction or difference, dipper-shit. Getting Assange into US custody was always the plan, dippest-shit.

  129. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Calydor · · Score: 1

    They can still charge him with a bunch of stuff, eg. unauthorized use of a computer etc., but they can't charge him with actual treason.

    --
    -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
  130. You guys give him too much credit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Assange did basically nothing and he will never be prosecuted for any kind of crime related to confidential documents in the US. He owned a domain name and hosting space on a sever. Big fucking deal.

  131. And the reason you're hoping so... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    He'll have thrown away 7 years of his life voluntarily and look like a narcissistic idiot (more so than he already does)

    ....is because if the UK tries to hand him over to the US, you will be the idiot. You and your fellow shitweasles crapping all over the guy who's done more journalism this century than any media source you can name.

  132. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

    People from foreign nations are completely above the law here in the USA.

    That's nonsense. Try robbing a bank in another country, or hacking into a computer system.

  133. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by blahplusplus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's really cute that some people think that you can publish Secret documents from any nation

    Meanwhile, Slashdotlawyers should probably read this https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/1...

    Better call the DOJ to let them know that they can't do that.

    People like you can't read between the lines, you can't hold a corrupt government accountable when they can make they can classify their corruption and bad behavior as state secrets. So while you are sitting their in a pile of your own festering stupidity unable to see through the lies of the corporate state, people with a brain know how corruption actually works. When corrupt people are writing the laws and making the policies, of course you're going to be "breaking the law" that's how corruption works idiot. The laws are corrupt themselves and can be made to mean anything depending on "who's guys" are interpreting them.

    If in doubt just look at what has happened to the public domain in intellectual property law in the united states. It's been totally destroyed.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...

  134. The 4.2bn reasons why Equator booted him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    It was to be expected since Equator received their payment last month. It just took this long to find out if the trumped up charges of sex assault could still be used, or if it was time to open up the game and show what everybody knew, that it was the USA behind it all.

    Equator's payment was $4.2bn from IMF - https://www.enca.com/business/imf-approves-42bn-loan-ecuador

  135. Those who said the US wanted him were called crazy by green1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Funny how many American apologists were all over themselves to scream that the US never wanted him in the first place, and that it was all just conspiracy theory that they were trying to lay their hands on him. And yet, the instant he's out of the embassy, there's a US extradition warrant waiting for him. Funny that, it's almost as if this was an obvious thing right from the start....

  136. Re: Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

    Except for the fact that he was peddling stolen information.

    Peddling? Was he selling it?

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  137. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by EllisDees · · Score: 3, Informative

    What crime? Afaik, the espionage act has never been successfully prosecuted against a member of the press. Even if he conspired to gain access to classified documents, so what? The pentagon papers decided that outcome almost 50 years ago, and it didn't go in the government's favor.

    --
    -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
  138. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Complete garbage post, and you are a retard. Have a nice day.

  139. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    There is literally nothing we can extradite him for.

    Then it's a plain old kidnapping, isn't it? They usually do that with unknowns, but public opinion will let this one pass.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  140. Thomas Crown Affair would've saved his ass by Darwiniac · · Score: 0
    So if he has all these British supporters why didn't they do a Thomas Crown Affair flash mob outside the embassy with a bunch of white-haired, suited guys?

    He coulda just walked out and disappeared into the crowd.

    1. Re:Thomas Crown Affair would've saved his ass by ledow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because that could variously lead to a charge of contempt of court, obstructing justice, aiding and abetting, etc.?

      And, to be honest, even if it worked, everyone involved would be in even bigger trouble than they are now.

      Fact is, nobody cares enough about him to get arrested. Not after the loyalty he showed the people who put up his bail money.

    2. Re:Thomas Crown Affair would've saved his ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      didn't micheal moore but him some bail money?

  141. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    People from foreign nations are completely above the law here in the USA.

    That's nonsense. Try robbing a bank in another country, or hacking into a computer system.

    Whoosh - I was being extremely sarcastic towards the Slashdot lawyers who pronounced Assange above the law.

    And for the Slashdot lawyers, if an American traitor were to give an ambassador of another nation state secrets, the Ambassador is going to be in trouble as well. And Assange doesn't have a shred of diplomatic immunity to hide behind.

    That last sentence wasn't sarcasm, just a statement.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  142. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

    Then why did he lock himself up in a prison for 8 years ?

  143. Comment to remove mods by Colourspace · · Score: 1

    Cvvfjgn

  144. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "As to Assange, he cannot be held criminally liable for any of the classified data leaked to Wikileaks and published by him on the site."

    Conspiracy against the United States, or conspiracy to defraud the United States, is a federal offense in the United States of America under 18 U.S.C. 371.

    Conspiring with a US adversary to hack and then disseminate the hacked information means he can be held criminally liable. If you don't like to be held criminally liable, don't commit crimes even if done over the Internet against another country.

  145. Some depraved nazi horseshit right there by Uberbah · · Score: 2

    Not even for releasing the footage of the lawful Apache combat actions. (The actions in the footage are not crimes under the Laws of Land Warfare as outlined in the various conventions.)

    You have three war crimes in that video:

    Targeting civilians
    Targeting journalists
    Targeting first responders

    And in a massively illegal war sold on lies. None of the liars or war criminals have been brought to account - but hey lets prosecute those who told us the truth!

  146. Global Warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Global warming takes another victim.

  147. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Immerman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd go one step further:
    Making an extradition request, having it granted, and having it be legally sound are *three* different things.

    The UK and US have a long and ongoing history of collaborating to circumvent their own laws, such as sharing surveillance collected on each others populations that they're not legally allowed to collect themselves. And the US has already clearly brought serious political pressure to bear on several countries trying to get their hands on Assange. You really think that the only way the UK would honor an extradition request is if it was completely above reproach?

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  148. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It does - the rule of the jungle.

  149. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can still commit a crime against the US and be charged for it even if you are not a US citizen. This is how the world works. Same anywhere you go.

  150. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I think you can get the firing squad for espionage too.

  151. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Poison.Pill · · Score: 1

    If he's missing measurable facts, can you enlighten all of us? Not snarkiness - I'm being serious.

  152. Re: What's he worrying about? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    If by non-morons, you mean people who just make shit up to defend Trump, then sure.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  153. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by kenh · · Score: 1

    I bet the US has communication between manning and Assange, or snowden and Assange, where Assange directs/instructs either to gather secret information and send it to him - that would put Assange in legal trouble as a co-conspirator on espionage.

    --
    Ken
  154. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But Extradition to the US is out of the question. There is literally nothing we can extradite him for. He did not violate any US law that he is subject to.

    Just FYI, the charge he is facing is "conspiring to illegally accessing a computer". To which the country he is from, Australia, has law in equity to the one he is being charged with in the US. International law and extradition is based on "had you committed this act domestically, would you have found yourself in violation there?" not "do you owe loyalty to a country in question?" The loyalty aspect of it come in the form of if a country will grant an extradition or not. So if you flee to a country where the US has recently been a bully to, then yeah, chances of being extradited are slim. However, you seem to be asking the "cause" for extradition, and that's pretty simple in that "had he done what he did to his home country, he would be facing charges, and thus having done it to a foreign power would mean that he understood that to citizens of his country (people of the like) would understand that the act is illegal."

    But yeah, treason is pretty much a domestic only crime. Who's saying charge him with treason? Well let me clarify, "who that anyone takes seriously is asking to charge him with treason?"

  155. Re: Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If there are no enemy combatants and only civilians as you say... what do you call someone who takes up arms and engages in war like activities.

  156. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1) Assange is not a US citizen, and is not subject to US laws.

    I'm Canadian and not a US citizen. If I hack into your American bank account from Canada and steal all your money I've still committed a crime and I'm still subject to US laws.

    If American law enforcement figures out who I am, they can extradite me and have me stand trial in the USA.

  157. The cat flipped on him by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    that's why you're not hearing anything. Never trust cats. Shoulda got a dog.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  158. It was possible by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    If you follow the Wikileaks Twitter account, they have ben reporting for about a week that he would be evicted from the embassy, and the British police were waiting to arrest him... a number of videos they posted showed undercover police outside the embassy 24x7 for the last few days.

    Hard to form a flash mob though when you don't have an exact time something will happen, just knowing it will happen soon is not enough as you can't keep a large crowd of people on standby. It would have been interesting to see if they could have got a small group together to march outside the embassy 24x7 for a week or so... but I guess no-one tried that.

    Honestly I think JA may be better off outside what was essentially an Ecuadorian prison anyway. I wonder if he'll at least be allowed to communicate from a UK jail...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  159. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by lgw · · Score: 1

    The jurisdiction of the US is its territory. We can dronestrike whoever we want, of course - intelligence agencies and extralegal recourse go together. A foreigner on foreign soil exposing US secrets? Not a legal issue, or should not be in any reasonable world. Now maybe said foreigner is in a nation with a treaty with the US to punish it's own people under its own laws for revealing US secrets, but that's a different matter.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  160. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because the curent US administration is collectively in possession of about 46% of a brain.

  161. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mod parent up, please. Intelligent, informative post.

    Intelligent? Informative? ON SLASHDOT?!?!?

    Perish the thought.

  162. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Immerman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > Why can't we use violence to fight whoever we don't like?
    We can. Anyone can. Capacity for violence is almost always the ultimate arbiter of acceptable behavior.

    The thing is, once you enter the realm of "law by right of arms", the person/group capable of the most decisive violence wins. And unless you're a government with legions of heavily armed and well indoctrinated soldiers, spooks, cops, etc. at your command, that's not you.

    And one of the first laws most governments enforce is "we have an exclusive right to use violence". There's some good reasons for that, as it disrupts what otherwise tends to become perpetual cycles of revenge and counter-revenge. But it also means that in taking up arms yourself, against anyone, you are challenging the government's primacy, and can expect to be stomped down, if only as an example to discourage more potentially credible threats.

    Once you leave the domain of a single cohesive government, such as entering international politics, there is no longer any single entity with an agreed upon monopoly on violence, which inevitably means that the capacity for violence is *always* a subtext in any conflict. Which is why nations around the world routinely violate treaty and trade agreements with impunity when they no longer serve their goals. Refraining from international violence has nothing to do with ethics or morality - it's all about profit and loss. So long as it's more profitable for everyone involved to abide by a treaty than to violate it, the treaty survives. Once that changes for one of the signatories, you can expect them to violate it.

    Just as happened when Russia invaded Crimea - doing so was a clear treaty violation, but a valuable strategic move (it gives them much more secure military access to the Mediterranean). They judged that the loss to the other major signatories was less than the losses associated with going to war over it (more profitable to everyone who mattered to avoid war), and so they went for it. And they judged correctly - the U.S. and others did the minimum necessary to defend the Ukraine as outlined by the nuclear nonproliferation treaty they had signed on to - sending a strongly worded letter. Of course that also means they sent a clear message to every other signatory that the treaty was absolutely worthless and they had better start making their own nukes if they wanted a real deterrent, but apparently the threat of more 2-bit nuclear powers arising in order to defend themselves was considered a more acceptable price to pay than war.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  163. It is pathetic .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That so many comments here are defending the US/UK governments, enjoy your so-called freedom. Orwell is right; Freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength.

  164. Re: Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by DrXym · · Score: 1

    Thanks for your advice AC. Particularly for the words that came out of your imagination, not in anything I wrote.

  165. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Immerman · · Score: 1

    I'm fairly certain that Assanage had no such clearance, so it's not relevant. Manning clearly violated his clearance, but that's not relevant to Assange. And reporters routinely receive and release such classified information (usually with some measure of responsible redaction) without legal repercussion, because there is not actually any law against doing so, even for US citizens, unless it materially aids an enemy of the US.

    The only halfway credible claim I've heard against Assange is that by actively encouraging Manning to acquire and share classified documents with him he was acting as a foreign intelligence agent - which is one of those things you really don't want to be accused of without a powerful foreign government protecting you.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  166. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Immerman · · Score: 1

    And exactly what crime did Assange commit in US jurisdiction?

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  167. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by dcw3 · · Score: 2

    The US has never asked anyone to arrest him with the intention of extraditing him....

    Not so fast. They're not getting him on classified, they're going after him for hacking.

    https://www.apnews.com/328522a... "A U.S. official says the Justice Department is preparing to announce charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange."

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/w... "US seeks extradition on hacking charges"

    https://www.theguardian.com/me...

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  168. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by NFN_NLN · · Score: 1

    Mod parent up, please. Intelligent, informative post.

  169. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Snowden broke his contract to expose the treachery of our own government. Though being a whistleblower will make someone qualify as "traitor," the fact is he did it in the service of the greater good.

    What I am saying is, Snowden did not betray "us," he betrayed corrupt leaders who themselves had betrayed us.

    So he should be pardoned.

  170. Re:Those who said the US wanted him were called cr by Kinthelt · · Score: 1

    Funny how many American apologists were all over themselves to scream that the US never wanted him in the first place, and that it was all just conspiracy theory that they were trying to lay their hands on him. And yet, the instant he's out of the embassy, there's a US extradition warrant waiting for him. Funny that, it's almost as if this was an obvious thing right from the start....

    The narrative has changed. We're now living in a world full of bots who will make pro-Chinese posts on any Slashdot article slightly critical of the Chinese government. There's ample evidence the same is happening for anything regarding the US government. The mood on Assange here on Slashdot has suspiciously shifted to "he deserves to be jailed".

    --

    "Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)

  171. Now let's see if the UK is as corrupt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as the U.S. and the Swedish Government who railroaded the young women, even when they made it clear they were never raped. It'll be interesting to see if they are going to do everything they can to make him rot in an American prison, to make it clear that no one will talk about the crimes that the U.S. government commits.

  172. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by blahplusplus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I love getting you true cowards spun up. Seems your hero Assange is out of a job, so why don't you troll around for traitors and take up his recently vacated position.

    You can think that all you want, people with a brain know Assange has been stalked with trumped up charges from the very corrupt people he's been exposing, the whole thing is a sham for those who are educated. Only morons and ill bread non reality perceiving animals like yourself believe in a concept like 'patriotism' and 'traitors' the world is much more complex then your one dimensional worldview. And if it was your ass on the line or your family member being offed by your own government, you might feel differently on how the powerful treat little useful idiots like yourself. You'd finally come to realize - the powerful only care about themselves, you're nothing but rabble in their presence.

  173. Julian Assange is Nowhere Near Innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's plain and simple anti-American bias is one thing. The need to protect whistleblowers is one thing. Freedom of speech is another. Julian was neither. He contrived with others to steel information with the intent and deed of using it to hurt Americans. Americans and those who helped Americans abroad were killed soon afterward. He acted wilfully as an enemy of the United States -- not a whistleblower or an advocate of free speech. His intent was to harm. And a number of good people died because of him.

    There is no question in my mind that Julian Assange is now going to a place worse than hell.

  174. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

    People like you can't read between the lines, you can't hold a corrupt government accountable when they can make they can classify their corruption and bad behavior as state secrets

    Please point to the documents leaked by Manning or Snowden via Wikileaks that were covering up illegal activities.

    Just because you don't like something doesn't make it illegal. And US law makes a very large distinction between US persons and non-US persons.

  175. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by religionofpeas · · Score: 2

    He only needs to be charged with a crime. Easy to come up with some bogus charges. He then tries to escape, and, very regrettably, had to be shot in the back.

  176. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

    IIRC, that vehicle was a regular passenger van, not an ambulance or anything else marked as "we're just picking up wounded". Which gives a legal fig leaf.

    But overall, I agree that it was just click bait. Innocent people get killed in wars. That's one of the big reasons to avoid fighting them.

  177. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by jeff4747 · · Score: 0

    What came out this morning was the US has charged Assange with helping Manning to crack a password. Which crosses the line from journalist to co-conspirator in unauthorized access to a computer system.

  178. Throw him under the prison by WCMI92 · · Score: 0

    I am glad that this wek weedy freak is in jail.

    Now arrest BRADLEY Manning. No the freak is NOT a woman.

    --
    Corporatism != Free Market
  179. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Julian Assange, 47, (03.07.71) has today, Thursday 11 April, been further arrested on behalf of the United States authorities, at 10:53hrs after his arrival at a central London police station. This is an extradition warrant under Section 73 of the Extradition Act. He will appear in custody at Westminster Magistrates' Court later today (Thursday, 11 April)."

    Attempting to steal US classified passwords? That may be about it. IANAL.

  180. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by jeff4747 · · Score: 5, Informative

    "As to Assange, he cannot be held criminally liable for any of the classified data leaked to Wikileaks and published by him on the site."

    You must be kidding.

    He's not kidding. And it's true.

    If you never got a security clearance, then you never signed away your first amendment rights. Which means you can publish any classified information that lands in your lap.

    The key is the information must "land in your lap". If you become an active participant in the leak (direct what to leak, offer a reward, provide technical help, etc), then you've crossed the line into being a co-conspirator.

  181. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    The jurisdiction of the US is its territory.

    I guess we're just going to have to see how this turns out, to see if Assange is as you indicate, above all law.

    To be certain, if Assange was in the United States when he did his work - he would still be 100 percent immune from prosecution?

    Seems you have made a fine case for the concept that spying is not only legal, but beyond prosecution. Not a US citizen, so it's all good.

    Are you so certain of this that you would try it?

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  182. Re:What's he worrying about? by Immerman · · Score: 0

    I suspect Trump surrounded himself with the most intelligent simpering treacherous halfwits that were willing to be publicly associated with his inevitable train-wreck of a presidency should he win.

    What I find interesting is that none of his more competent, less-public allies warned him off. Perhaps they did, but he was already committed to collaborating with the Russians. Or perhaps they decided his behavior would provide them with useful leverage down the line when it eventually came to light.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  183. Dumbass alert! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump loves and supports Wikileaks. Only shillary clint-fuck said she wanted to blow them up!

  184. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I doubt Trump would even consider a pardon. This isn't about Hillary but Manning, and I doubt his supporters, or more importantly the Trump Network, also known as Fox News, would look kindly on what would be spun as a pardon for someone who helped leak military secrets, and thus supported treason. Trump, if anything, is very careful not to piss off his core supporters or Fox News."

    But if he doesn't pardon, wouldn't that raise suspicions on the part of his supporters that he - Trump - is part of "The Deep State"? Maybe his tweeets will clear it all up.

  185. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    Interpol is only supposed to step in when crimes are committed by the same people in multiple countries (their job is to coordinate all the police forces involved).

    That didn't stop them putting out an arrest warrant for JA even though he's only wanted for "an interview" in a single country.

    --
    No sig today...
  186. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 0, Troll

    I love getting you true cowards spun up. Seems your hero Assange is out of a job, so why don't you troll around for traitors and take up his recently vacated position.

    You can think that all you want, people with a brain know Assange has been stalked with trumped up charges from the very corrupt people he's been exposing,

    And the earth is flat, the moon landings were a hoax, O'Blama is a Kenyan citizen, and Chemtrails are loaded with chemicals that emasculate males, and Pizzagate is real and ongoing.

    Do go on though, I love what you post. Do you have a newsletter, or at least T-shirts.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  187. He looks older than 47 by reboot246 · · Score: 2

    He's always looked older than he was, but now he looks like he's at least 65. In the video where they were dragging him out of the building he looked like a thin Santa Claus. I guess being trapped inside a building for years takes its toll on a person.

  188. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by blahplusplus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I love getting you true cowards spun up. Seems your hero Assange is out of a job, so why don't you troll around for traitors and take up his recently vacated position.

    You can think that all you want, people with a brain know Assange has been stalked with trumped up charges from the very corrupt people he's been exposing,

    And the earth is flat, the moon landings were a hoax, O'Blama is a Kenyan citizen, and Chemtrails are loaded with chemicals that emasculate males, and Pizzagate is real and ongoing.

    Do go on though, I love what you post. Do you have a newsletter, or at least T-shirts.

    Not my problem, the science says I can tell you the truth and you won't believe it. You gullibly believe evolution has selected for reality perceiving brains, when there is overwhelming evidence from religion most human beings were not. So that means there's inequality in perception and hence inequality in accurate perceptions of reality. You've provided no evidence for your position. The US government is known to be corrupt and has a huge history of corruption and that is well documented in academic circles. But it's obvious from your posts your not educated enough to talk about these things.

    Science on reasoning:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  189. Bad decisions on both sides plus fog of war by drnb · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You have three war crimes in that video:

    Actually ZERO war crimes. Just bad decisions on BOTH sides and the fog of war.

    Targeting civilians

    Civilians carrying arms (rifles and RPG) in an active combat zone, in an area where American forces had received fire from, an area where Americans were approaching. The arms and context make the group a legal target.

    Targeting journalists

    The journalists embedded themselves with a group of civilians carrying arms in a combat zone, the journalists were not wearing distinctive clothing identifying themselves. Additionally a shadow of the camera lens was mistakenly believed to be another RPG. The journalists were collateral damage. Regrettable but legal.

    Targeting first responders

    The van was not marked as a first responders vehicle. The civilians in a civilian van were mistakenly believed to be additional insurgents collecting insurgent wounded/dead *and weapons*. Very regrettable but legal.

    1. Re:Bad decisions on both sides plus fog of war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the war mongering begins...

  190. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    Not my problem, the science says I can tell you the truth and you won't believe it. You gullibly believe evolution has selected for reality perceiving brains, when there is overwhelming evidence from religion most human beings were not. So that means there's inequality in perception and hence inequality in accurate perceptions of reality. You've provided no evidence for your position. The US government is known to be corrupt and has a huge history of corruption and that is well documented in academic circles. But it's obvious from your posts your not educated enough to talk about these things.

    Science on reasoning:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Pure gold you are posting. Pure gold.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  191. Re: Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Active imagination? You are the one renaming people "Boris."

    Were there commies under your bed at night during the Cold War? You'd better open up your windows and doors to air out the mustiness.

  192. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1
    who was pardoned by a Democrat president

    False, comrade. Manning's sentence was commuted which means the length of prison time was reduced. The conviction itself still stands untouched. From the article:

    A presidential commutation reduces the sentence being served but it does not change the fact of conviction, whereas a pardon forgives a certain criminal offense.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  193. Hacking US computers illegal, ask Robert Mueller by drnb · · Score: 2

    Assange is not a US citizen, and is not subject to US laws.

    Foreign citizenship and a foreign locale does not provide immunity for hacking into US computers. You might have noticed how Mueller had indicted Russians in Russia. Same thing here. Assange is accused of assisting Manning in the collection of classified data. Such assistance crosses the line and takes him outside of journalistic shielding, he did not merely publish if the accusations are accurate.

  194. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This may be congresses doing as they may want to get him to the U.S. So they can subpoena him regarding Trump's collusion with the Russians. Or Trump wants to lock him away in a dark hole so he can not testify in front of congress about said matter.

  195. Re: Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 4, Informative

    If I burn a Koran in the public square in my midwestern US town, am I subject to being extradited to Iran to face punishment?

    No, Anonymous Coward, you aren't.

    For extradition to occur two criteria have to be met -

    1) The alleged offense has to be considered a crime in both countries. This is typically determined by a judge at the extradition hearing.

    2) There has to be an extradition treaty between the two countries.

    Neither criteria are met in your example, both criteria are met in the Assange situation.

    (In some circumstances there also has to be assurances that the death penalty will not be sought. For example, Canada will not extradite individuals charged with murder to the USA unless the USA guarantees the alleged perpetrator will not be executed if found guilty.)

  196. Donald Trump loves wikileaks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://i.imgur.com/h0dSFk1.mp4

  197. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF. It can't be a manufactured controversy "other than that." "Other than that" WAS the controversy you complete ass. It was audio and video so you could hear the military personnel ask themselves if the people were civilians then decide to shoot anyway. It's a controversy because people don't agree about the right or wrong of the actions but it definitely was a controversy and NOT MANUFACTURED AT ALL.

  198. Apache actions NOT LAWFUL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The video CLEARLY showed the SYSTEMATIC BUTCHERING OF ONLY CIVILIANS by that Apache pilot and gunner! THIS IS A WAR CRIME PUNISHABLE BY DEATH!

  199. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the end it doesn't matter. Why? If they don't extradite him, they can just deport him. And, then the question is, where do they deport him to? He is no longer a citizen of Ecuador. He is no longer a citizen of Sweeden. But I am sure the United States will generously take him in as a refugee and indefinitely detain him.

  200. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's not let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

    He actively encouraged and pressed Chelsea Manning to steal more docs. He coached her on how to hack a password. H's not just some bafoon that had all these docs fall into his lap.

    Also, I figured the average person would know this, but apparently not. If you're fencing stolen goods you're still thief.

    Back in the old days, people protesting something wore an arrest and jail time as a badge of honor. Assange is just a common troll/coward that looks like an albino so people pay attention to him.

  201. Re: Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Stolovaya · · Score: 2

    Strawman. Plenty of liberals don't want to see him rot in jail.

    Fucked up when exposing the truth is seen as collaboration with neo nazis. Projection perhaps?

  202. Yes, but no by thunderclees · · Score: 1

    The BBC and other sources are saying that Assange is being charged and that he is facing extradition to the US. From the Justice Department:
    WikiLeaks Founder Charged in Computer Hacking Conspiracy
    From the BBC:
    Julian Assange: Wikileaks co-founder arrested in London
    Both the Clinton's and Obummer really want his ass since WikiLeaks showed what kind of ass clowns they all were.

  203. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by mlheur · · Score: 1

    Are you sure about that? It sounds like you're saying: If a person from a foreign nation tries to rob a store in a US city, the local police would forego arresting and charging that person?

  204. I don't understand your solution by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    if the readers are contributing how is that any different than buying a subscription to a website, newspaper or magazine?

    I think our best bet is UBI so that folks who want to do Journalism can just do it and not worry about making a living off it.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I don't understand your solution by shanen · · Score: 1

      Thank you for your curiosity. I will attempt to answer your question, though I don't want to go too far afield.

      First, to address your context and solution, I'm taking UBI as Universal Basic Income, and I agree with you that it can support journalism, though indirectly. However I do not think that is its primary purpose, and I would analyze it differently, from my ekronomic (time-based economic) perspective. I think the justification for UBI is independent of the problems of journalism, but within UBI the encouragement of journalism fits within the larger category of encouraging investment time use rather than recreational time. However this is an especially tricky area, and I would argue that some journalism even crosses into the area of essential time for the same reason that the basic work of police is largely essential. (Though some journalism crosses the other way into recreational time.)

      Second, as regards my solution approach, it can be regarded as a different kind of subscription, but with the advantage of letting you use your donated money to indicate your interests and priorities at the same time as you are helping to make the world better. You would read the stories (or watch the videos) as before, but afterwards you would have the option to look at the proposed solutions to see if you want to support any of them. If enough readers agree with you, then the project would be funded. After the project has been completed, it would be natural to do a story about how it came out, and of course the donors would be especially interested in those results.

      The CSB would earn a share for project management and evaluation services (including handling and accounting for the money), and the publisher would receive a share for publishing the story to the wider audience. I also think the journalists should be paid for their valuable work (even if a UBI exists). There are two natural mechanisms there. One would be payment at the discretion of the editors and publishers, but I would actually favor the use of "internal projects". As an internal project, one of the "solution projects" after the article would be to solve the "problem" of compensating the author. In most cases that would be a relatively trivial project, so it would soon be satisfied and replaced with some other project--but of course if too few readers agree to support the author's work, then that is important feedback, both for the journalist and for the publisher.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  205. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, is Manning a traitor or a hero? If she's a traitor, why did Obama commute her sentence? If she's a hero, why is Assange being charged with aiding her heroic efforts? Pick a side, shitlib.

  206. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did Assange direct or guide or help manning with his crime? That's illegal. That's not being a journalist.

  207. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Assange indictment is a laugh to read also and just reinforces what blah is saying a bit also. Just saying "no luck so far" with no context is enough to get you extradited for 'conspiracy to commit computer hacking' when someone else (Manning) allegedly cracked SIPRnet security with a linux CD and is having trouble decoding a password hash to log in as someone else?

    If SIPRnet security can be so easily bypassed... good god my 12 year old nephew must be a hacking GOD!

    Isn't it more worthwhile to focus on the larger issues of why SIPRnet is a Fort Knox made of toilet paper and holding THOSE people responsible instead?!

    That wouldn't be nearly the point of the whole exercise though...

  208. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We have nothing we can extradite him for."

    Yes we do - a public flogging to keep the sheeple in check.
    This isn't a law thing at all, the goal is to make an example of him.

  209. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by nomadic · · Score: 1

    1) Non-US citizens doing crimes on American soil does make you subject to US laws.
    2) The thing is here it looks like he's being charged with trying to ACTIVELY HACK US computers on US soil.
    3) If the MSM tries to break into your house to steal your papers, then yeah, it's a crime.
    4) I believe he has explicitly claimed to be a journalist.

  210. UBI would kill journalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think our best bet is UBI so that folks who want to do Journalism can just do it and not worry about making a living off it.

    For every journalist freed from having to earn an income by UBI, a legion of trolls would also be freed.

    In other words, instead of having paid Russian trolls drowning journalists out, it's volunteer trolls who are no longer inhibited by their lack of income.

  211. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by nomadic · · Score: 2

    That is just absolutely false. Where on earth did you get the idea that Interpol only tracks people who commit crimes in multiple countries?

    https://www.interpol.int/en/Wh...

  212. I think it's still a conspiracy by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I just don't think Hilary had much to do with it. We all forget how much Wikileaks did before Hilary because he helped give us Trump. But Assange leaked mountains of documents from the wealthiest people on Earth. There was no scenario where he got away with that in the current oligarchy. The Hilary stuff is small potatoes. She was always just another bag man for the ultra wealthy. She never once threatened to upset their apple carts. What doomed Assange was getting on the bad side of people with unlimited access to money and power. That he escaped them for as long as he did is a minor miracle.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I think it's still a conspiracy by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      The difference between Wikileaks prior document dumps and what they did with Hillary is that in the case of Trump/Clinton, they held documents that they had and trickled them out over time for maximum political effect - either to keep the drip, drip of 'revelations' going (they didn't really reveal much that wasn't obvious - but they sure commandeered a news cycle or 20), or to distract from embarrassing Trump news (mainly the 'grab them by the pussy' tape).

      If Wikileaks were merely in the business of exposing corruption - or disseminating news, they wouldn't have engaged in such partisan behavior. In fact, I think that prior to 2016, they generally dumped what they had pretty much all at once.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    2. Re:I think it's still a conspiracy by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure it was 2016 (may have happened before that particular dump) but there definitely was a switch by Wikileaks from "Sure, we'll host and protect the integrity of that unofficial data" to "We will control the flow of information".

      I think that damaged them more than rape allegations. People understand and can at least respect the ethos behind 'information wants to be free' but despise people that try to control knowledge for their own selfish needs.

    3. Re:I think it's still a conspiracy by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I agree with this. While Wikileaks has tried to pass itself off as essentially a journalistic organization, it's previous behavior was simply to dump the documents and let the cards fall where they may (I first read anything of theirs' when they leaked details of corruption in the Turks and Caicos, which lead to the British government dismissing the local government and taking over direct administration of the Overseas Territory). If this had been, say, the New York Times, the Guardian, Washington Post or heck, even a more right wing outlet like the Daily Telegraph, there would have been first and foremost a helluva lot of discussions with the outlet's lawyers, a helluva lot of redaction, but ultimately the only splitting up of the information would be more along the lines of how quickly those steps could be followed on such a massive dump of information.

      But the way the Democrat leak was handled was not how journalists would handle it. It was overtly partisan, clearly designed to cause the Clinton campaign as much damage as possible, and there's at least some pretty strong hints that one way or the other it was done with at least some orchestration from the Trump campaign. Now while I don't particularly hold anything against Trump or his team, since deliberate and timed leaks of damaging information against a political opponent is just how political campaigns work. But for Wikileaks I think it was fatal, because it destroyed whatever shreds of credibility it had as a non-partisan distributor of leaked information. But even the Manning leak was handled pretty badly in my view, though I think at the very least Assange could claim he was just setting the information free.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:I think it's still a conspiracy by KeensMustard · · Score: 0

      I just don't think Hilary had much to do with it. We all forget how much Wikileaks did before Hilary because he helped give us Trump. But Assange leaked mountains of documents from the wealthiest people on Earth. There was no scenario where he got away with that in the current oligarchy. The Hilary stuff is small potatoes. She was always just another bag man for the ultra wealthy.

      Which is kind of ironic, Hillary is just a bag man for the Mafia, Trump IS the Mafia. His supporters didn't want a president influenced by the elite who see themselves as above the law, so they elected someone who, at his core truly, honestly believes himself to be above the law, and, for all intents and purposes, is.

    5. Re:I think it's still a conspiracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Couldn't we like, I don't know, use a drone to take him out?" -- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

      Nothing to do with partisanship. It was self defense.

    6. Re:I think it's still a conspiracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Helped give us Trump". Jesus Christ! Take responsibility for your party's corruption. If you can't beat Trump, you stink.

      It just goes to show how non-representative today's politicians are.

    7. Re:I think it's still a conspiracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He had some level of support from the American people prior to the DNC leaks. For some reason people cared more that Clinton lost (or that Trump won) than they did about the shenanigans with the DNC. I doubt many people will be standing up for him now. He's not facing extreme consequences though, just conspiracy to hack a government computer (right now).

    8. Re:I think it's still a conspiracy by tbannist · · Score: 1

      The Hilary stuff is small potatoes. She was always just another bag man for the ultra wealthy. She never once threatened to upset their apple carts.

      I think you underestimate Hillary a little bit, she threatened to upset the apple carts of a few wealthy people who don't want anyone to do anything about health care or climate change. Sure, she wasn't going to flip all the carts over, but Trump isn't doing anything to flip any carts, unless that particular person has ticked him off by not being sufficiently respectful to the Don.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    9. Re:I think it's still a conspiracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in the current oligarchy.

      Even if the current one goes, another nomenclature crops up to take their place.

    10. Re:I think it's still a conspiracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but despise people that try to control knowledge for their own selfish needs.

      Or release that knowledge for such selfish needs.

      It should be remembered, that the 'good' Wikileaks back then had a bigger staff, and a more-or-less consensus-based decision-making process as to what to release and what not to release, and when. Assange had had a fallout with that sane staff, who'd left, so Wikileaks subsequently became a one-man operation.

      Bradley Manning's release of the war crimes video was ultimately correct.

      (This paragraph is speculation and based on how I remember the events, as reported by reputable news media.)
      AFAIK, a data-dump of military information also happened, and spurred the departure of the United States from the theatre of the Iraq War, leaving grounds for the birth of the Islamic State (aka ISIS, IS, ISIL). Of course, Barack Obama promised in 2008 leaving the War anyway, but the real damage was done in 2010 with that or another release -- certainly theft -- of what I remember was strategic and tactical information, leaving the allied troops vulnerable.

      The data-dump of diplomatic cables, on the other hand, had mixed results. This data dump was not curated well enough: it became available in its entirety, allegedly by accident, and also put a numerous lives in danger. It finally proved, that Wikileaks were not beyond dumping information at all costs, including lives and livelihoods.

      The result of that was the Arab Spring, begun in Tunisia, and spurred by the release of diplomatic cables about Tunisian leadership, which angered the people of Tunisia. After the Arab Spring ended, the only winner was Tunisia, which was the only country inherently ready to become a democracy.

      The Syrian Civil War began, causing the influx of Syrian war refugees to neighboring countries and Europe, and the Libyan Civil War began, enabling migration from Sub-Saharan Africa to Europe. Not all of the migrants from Africa are refugees, though this continent has its own conflicts (the South Sudan Civil War, for example).

      Bradley Manning changed history with the intent of making the world a better place. Julian Assange sought to make the world a worse place, having complete disregard for the big picture.

      Assange is one part of the very malicious puzzle that got Trump elected. The same Trump who separated (separates) children from their parents, and who put (puts) people in cages.

  213. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by lgw · · Score: 1

    The jurisdiction of the US is its territory.

    I think that answers the questions you asked. Was he on US soil? The he may have committed a crime under US jurisdiction. Maybe not, though: ordinary US citizens don't break any laws by revealing US secrets either. You have to agree to give up some rights before you can be charged for that (which of course you must to to get access to anything secret). I suspect they'll go for a conspiracy charge, which is at least vaguely plausible, but only again if he was on US soil.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  214. I hate the guy as much as anyone by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    he helped give us Trump, and he should have known better. Trump is nobody's friend. Also he was irresponsibly leaking un-redacted documents. But the charges he fled were so obviously an excuse to get him into custody so that the US could extradite him as to be laughable. We don't need to ask if the US would have extradited him, the first thing the US did when he was no longer protected by Ecuador is file to extradite.

    He's not a child throwing a tantrum, he's being railroaded because he crossed some very rich and very powerful people. His real crimes were those financial documents that got leaked and showed how much money was stored in offshore tax havens. It let us know just how much wealth the 1% has siphoned out of the economy and for anyone paying attention we now know why we're all living under austerity despite the biggest GDPs in history.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I hate the guy as much as anyone by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      And yet, the main reason he spent the past 7 years in a luxury prison is that he could not be bothered to use a rubber.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    2. Re:I hate the guy as much as anyone by Cederic · · Score: 1

      He's not a child throwing a tantrum, he's being railroaded

      These are not mutually exclusive.

  215. It never was tolerated by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    you didn't notice because several economic booms fueled by technology ( post WWII, Internet, Housing/Investment Bubble ) hid the effects from a lot of us. You didn't notice because the economy was doing so well that the scraps the 1% leaves us were, for a short time, some mighty tasty scraps. They've noticed how good those scraps are now and are taking those too. Because of that you're starting to notice shit like this again.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  216. Re:Those who said the US wanted him were called cr by Corbets · · Score: 1

    I didn’t believe they would try to extradite him, as I wasn’t aware of any crime he’d committed. The indictment makes it clear that he’s being charged for something which is a crime, but I’ll admit that I was wrong. I’ll be a bit surprised if it’s enough to get him actually extradited.

    I’m still laughing that he got his sorry ass thrown out, though. Wrong or not, he’s still a self-aggrandizing biotch.

  217. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    Are you sure about that? It sounds like you're saying: If a person from a foreign nation tries to rob a store in a US city, the local police would forego arresting and charging that person?

    Should have been picked up as sarcasm. Yes, breaking US law can be prosecuted in the US, even if the person is not a US citizen.

    Pretty much the same as any country. That's one of the reasons there are extradition treaties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    Now, they are not always honored, but in a case where Assange is located in Great Britain, it is very likely to be honored. There are some cases where a country might refuse extradition if the country demanding extradition intends to seek the death penalty, and in any event, refusal to extradite rests as a soverign right.

    But Assange isn't likely to be charged with anything calling for a death penalty. And while within their rights to refuse Extradition, GB would be playing a game with a future extradition request to the US.

    Where the Slashdot Lawyers have got off thinking that there is no recourse, that Assange is unindictable because he isn't a US citizen, is pretty obviously based on their hatred of the US and support of Assange and the people he works for than actual law. Read the replies to my posts. It's more 'Murrica is evil, dammit!" than actual knowledge.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  218. The Apache Heli murderers. Duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or are you going to complain that that doesn't count because, well, it's merkin killers

    1. Re:The Apache Heli murderers. Duh by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Nothing in that video violates any convention on warfare.

      The fact that nothing in that video is illegal is one of the big reasons going to war is bad.

  219. Re: Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    Active imagination? You are the one renaming people "Boris."

    Were there commies under your bed at night during the Cold War? You'd better open up your windows and doors to air out the mustiness.

    Did I get the name wrong, Ivan?

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  220. Re: Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by belthize · · Score: 1

    Not sure beyond trolling what your point is but yes you're subject to the request, there's about zero chance the US state dept would turn you over.

    Any country is free at any time to file an extradition request for anybody for any reason. The host nation is also free to politely, or not so politely say, fuck off.

  221. So having a car in a city is a capital crime? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It wasn't a war zone. It was a city. Where people live, some of them have cars. If I see you in a car, I'll pipe bomb your ass to hell, because you're not in an ambulance...

    1. Re:So having a car in a city is a capital crime? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      It wasn't a war zone. It was a city.

      Those are not mutually exclusive.

      If I see you in a car, I'll pipe bomb your ass to hell, because you're not in an ambulance

      If it's a random vehicle, soldiers are allowed to assume it's bringing reinforcements. If it's an obvious medical transport, they're supposed to be a bit more cautious.

  222. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    The jurisdiction of the US is its territory.

    I think that answers the questions you asked. Was he on US soil? The he may have committed a crime under US jurisdiction. Maybe not, though: ordinary US citizens don't break any laws by revealing US secrets either. You have to agree to give up some rights before you can be charged for that (which of course you must to to get access to anything secret). I suspect they'll go for a conspiracy charge, which is at least vaguely plausible, but only again if he was on US soil.

    Seriously, lgw, do some research on extradition treaties, and come back and tell me that it isn't possible to charge a non-US citizen with a crime if he isn't in the USA.

    I make jokes about flat earthers, but dammit - the immunity that you people grant Assange with is more related to your support of what he has done, and your hatred of the USA than it is to actual international law. This is why there is law. You simply support anything that harms your enemy. As I noted before, being in Great Britain, the US can invoke the Extradition treaty with GB. There are certain reasons they can refuse under the treaty, and have a right to do so in any event. But simple refusal makes it less likely that a future request of their own be honored.

    IANAL, but I do know some law. Assange's best hope is that the present folks in power refuse to make an extradition request as a payback for the help he has given them.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  223. Lot more coming soon by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    You can't run and you can't hide. Putin won't save you.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  224. Re: Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a useful set of truths that can and will be used to discredit the establisment Democrats.

    So as things roll along, all we need to do is keep a record of the truth.

  225. Re: Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This. All the old fags who were alive during the cold way cropping back up. Their imaginations still believe commies r out to destroy the precisious America. Fucking fags.

  226. Resisting a false arrest is a crime too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It shouldn't be. And the EAW was invalid. It merely made claims, unsupported by any evidence given (done by a prosecutor, not a judge as was intended, but never coded into law, since they figured "ARREST warrant" made it clear enough) that the law court was RESTRICTED to considering if those claims met the burden of extradition under UK law. But, since you can make any old shit accusation you like, an arrest warrant on that is meaningless and invalid, which was why the law court was mandated to ignore.

  227. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously? The dude wouldn't even change his cat's litter box. That's grounds for a public execution by firing squad.

  228. Re: Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yet you keep getting modded down. Funny how that works. We call it delusional. Check with your doctor you Cold War fag.

  229. Re:What's he worrying about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah yes. The inevitable accusations that it somebody else who is the Siberian Candidate.

    Look, Trump tried to get Hillary executed, but nobody will let him lick a postage stamp over her.

  230. Re: Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's all you Cold War fags have is guesses.

  231. Nope three war crimes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just because they were done by "your guys" doesn't change that, cupcake.

    1. Re:Nope three war crimes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because they were done by "your guys" doesn't change that, cupcake.

      Whose guys they are is irrelevant. The GP is referring to international law.

    2. Re:Nope three war crimes by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      The GP is referring to international law.

      So was I. Under international law, it is illegal to target civilians, first responders and journalists. And the war was illegal in the first place as well.

    3. Re:Nope three war crimes by drnb · · Score: 1

      The GP is referring to international law.

      So was I. Under international law, it is illegal to target civilians, first responders and journalists. And the war was illegal in the first place as well.

      Then you do not understand international law. Men openly carrying arms in an area of active combat are not civilians. Wearing civilian clothes does not make them civilians. In fact wearing civilian clothes may make them illegal combatants under international law. Making them legal targets, making them ineligible for treatment as POWs, making them subject to the laws of the occupying power they are fighting against, etc. Some sort of distinctive markings visible at a distance is required for militias, partisans, etc when wearing civilian clothing rather than military uniforms.

      Regarding first responders and journalists, none were identifying themselves as such with any sort of distinctive markings visible at a distance as required. The journalist was indistinguishable from the armed men in the group. The van was indistinguishable from vehicles armed men had used in the region. Regrettable misidentification, one which proper marking are supposed to help prevent. Again, sadly, the journalists and first responders were legal targets due to their lack of compliance with the laws of war.

    4. Re:Nope three war crimes by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Then you do not understand international law.

      Then your projected ignorance is noted, along with your lack of understanding of who was shot in the Collateral Murder video.

      Men openly carrying cameras in an area of active combat are civilians.

      FTFY. Those supposed weapons were actually cameras held by reporters, making up two of your three war crimes. But even if they were weapons, that doesn't make the people holding them not civilians. In the first place, you can't tell me with a straight face that you can illegally invade another country, blow the shit out of it's people, government and infrasturture, set off a sectarian civil war, and then call anyone who carries a weapon to defend themselves

      Fuck that. Fuck it with a giant dick. Fuck any imperialist nazi sack of crap who says they can illegally invade and occupy a people for bullshit reasons and then police how people choose to defend themsleves.

      Wearing civilian clothes does not make them civilians. In fact wearing civilian clothes may make them illegal combatants under international law. Making them legal targets, making them ineligible for treatment as POWs blah blah blah blah blah

      Look, imperialist, the UK and the US explicitly allowed the subjects of their illegal, immoral invasion to keep weapons - where they not merciful?

      Regarding first responders and journalists, none were identifying themselves as such with any sort of distinctive markings visible at a distance as required.

      Fuck your requirements, it wasn't your fucking country, you fucking shit-for-brains. It was no more your business to gun down these people that it's the business of Russian gunships to gun down everyone from cops in Ferguson to the Bundy's in Oregon.

  232. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by shentino · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, the real law is

    "If you piss off a high powered politician, you are guilty"

  233. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Immerman · · Score: 1

    That is indeed the problem.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  234. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

    As pointed out by another poster, the vehicle was not marked in any way as an ambulance. Personally, I have issues with it, but from a legal perspective, it's not a war crime. Also, again IIRC, the "loading the wounded" part was NOT the reason for the "collateral murder" narrative, it was ancillary to the "zOMG, they're shooting at armed people in a war zone" outrage.

    Armed combatants in a war zone tend to get shot at. You can debate the reasons for the war all you want to, you can debate the overall conduct of the combatants, you can certainly call out things like abu Ghraib, but this particular action does not war crime make.

    --
    What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
  235. Re:Those who said the US wanted him were called cr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm american. Of course this was the only way it was going to go when he left the embassy. Keeping the legal proceedings hidden and denying their existence was an attempt to get the fish to bite the hook.

  236. cheer away, you hypocrite scoundrels by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    I can't stand the modern libtard crowd pretending to care about freedom

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  237. Stating the bleeding obvious by Martin+S. · · Score: 1

    Given the maximum sentence he faces for absconding is 1 year in prison.

    He will likely receive a sentence at upper end because his actions were wilful, he's shown no remorse and resisted his arrest once the Ecuadorians threw him out.

  238. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by skoskav · · Score: 1

    I'm hearing that people in Norway are apparently already feeling sorry for their biggest mass murderer in history who might, maybe, have to stay locked up for 25 years.

    "People," as in one blog article, or a verifiable chunk of the population?

    Norway is not Sweden but it's probably not all that different either, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Swedes granted bail and Assange found a way to sneak into Russia.

    There's no bail in the Swedish judicial system. They instead detain suspects if certain criteria are met, which this investigation seems to do on several points.

  239. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

    Yeah but that seams to be for gaining unauthorized access to some computer and not for the data leaked by WikiLeaks.

  240. That's not Julian Assange by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

    They've arrested David Letterman by mistake.

    --
    Nullius in verba
  241. Re: What's he worrying about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude, you literally posted three times already today claiming that Hillary was exposed for her crimes, and now you're denying your shillness?

    Whatever. Just tell us when we've always been at War with EastAsia Again.

    Put it on your calendar.

    Seriously,none of the Obama administration you're crowing about committed any real offenses.

    Meanwhile, the Trump Campaign has had dozens of criminal actions exposed, and Barr is trying to bury the Mueller report so hard he is going through shovels like he just took up competitive grave digging.

    Even Sessions bugged out. And Nielsen. All that's left are the comatose idiot tomatoes and the white nationalist brigade who wants us to ignore their KKK hoods and pretend that Hitler was an evil globalist.

  242. Nonsense by Martin+S. · · Score: 1

    He fought extradition all the way to the UK supreme court and lost at every stage.

  243. Re: Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    an american

  244. do the dump by toed · · Score: 2

    I personally hope he does a dump of everything he has related to corruption within the US govt and political parties in exchange for immunity.

    Wouldn't that be something?

  245. Gaslighting Nonsense by Martin+S. · · Score: 1

    He was arrested for jumping bail.

    1. Re:Gaslighting Nonsense by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1
      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  246. Do you ... by Martin+S. · · Score: 0

    Do you really believe that shit or are you deliberately gaslighting?

    Frankly he has proven himself a liar at every stage of this and his supporters repeatedly prove themself fools for parroting his nonsense.

    His narcissism and ego have do far more damage to the cause of whistleblowing than anybody ever.

  247. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    True. IANAL, but a more plausible charge would be a conspiracy charge based on his actions with Manning. His emails, any phone conversation, chats, etc. would most probably have gone through US servers as well as had direct contacts with Manning in the US, thus establishing a nexus and US jurisdiction over his actions. It's a tenuous link but could be what is used to bring hm to trial or at least get extradition. What happens afterwards is up to the courts.

    With that in mind, don't forget that Bradley Manning was part of a well-organized espionage ring that had a fairly obscure and unique name for themselves: Transgender.

  248. Russian Trolls or deluded fools by Martin+S. · · Score: 1

    I really cannot decide, but the propensity of his apologists to just make shit up is quite staggering and very amusing.

    Keep it up you're adding to his world of hurt.

  249. Re:Those who said the US wanted him were called cr by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

    Back then the claims was they they wanted to either put him in gitmo or straight out execute him and that he would be extradited in secret from Sweden. That is why those theories where deemed conspiracy theories. Now we have the DoJ wanting him for an actual crime with a maximum sentence of 5 years, not quite the same situation.

  250. Public masturbation of 647458 by shanen · · Score: 1

    Z^-1

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  251. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but it doesn't change the fact that I ...

    ... tampered with / destroyed evidence. The chain of custody would have been compromised, and any evidence from the car would be poisoned. The perp wouldn't have walked, they would have driven home. Possibly (IANAL) you would be charged with breaking and entering, GTA and interfering with an investigation. Maybe not the best analogy. However, it is still in the grandest of Slashdot traditions.

  252. FINALLY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't wait for his snivelling ass to be shipped to the US for the reaming it sorely deserves.

    1. Re:FINALLY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      d888888b d8888b. db . .db .88b, d88. d8888b.
        ~ 88 ~ 88 `8D. 88 . .88 88'YbdP`88 88, `8D
        . 88 . 88oobY' 88 . .88 88. 88 .88 88oodD'
        . 88 . 88`8b . 88 . .88 88. 88 .88 88
        . 88 . 88 `88. 88b_ d88 88. 88 .88 88
        . YP . 88 . YD ~Y8888P' YP. YP .YP 88

      .d888b.. .d88b.. .d888b.. .d88b.
      VP. `8D .8P. 88. VP. `8D .8P. 88.
      .. odD' 88. d'88. . odD' 88. d'88
      ..88'. .88 d' 88. .88'. .88 d' 88
      j88.. . `88. d8' j88.. . `88. d8'
      888888D. `Y88P'. 888888D. `Y88P'

    2. Re: FINALLY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You tell 'em, Sasha!

  253. Re:Releasing US classified work is legal in UK. by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

    Hey Anonymous Cupcake, what is the exact criminal charge Assange is facing?

  254. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US had no casus beli against Iraq in 2003, so all of these actions are unlawful. Just sayin'.

  255. Re: Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

    So it's a crime in the UK to publish US documents? When you aren't even a citizen.

    He hasn't been charged with "publishing documents," Anonymous Coward.

    He's been charged with criminal conspiracy and criminal hacking, both of which are a crime in the UK.

    In the UK he has been charged with breaching bail.

  256. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Julian Assange, 47, (03.07.71) has today, Thursday 11 April, been further arrested on behalf of the United States authorities, at 10:53hrs after his arrival at a central London police station. This is an extradition warrant under Section 73 of the Extradition Act. He will appear in custody at Westminster Magistrates' Court later today (Thursday, 11 April)."

    Makes me realize I'm having a very good day. When multiple countries arrest you, it cannot be fun.

  257. Pathetic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's pathetic that so there are so many comments defending the US/UK government. Enjoy your so called freedom. Orwell is right; Freedom is Slavery.

  258. Re:Releasing US classified work is legal in UK. by tbannist · · Score: 1

    According to the Verge, he's been charged with "one count of violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)".

    --
    Fanatically anti-fanatical
  259. The meat is where the trolls lie? by shanen · · Score: 1

    Actually now is the least-bad time for him to be arrested. He helped Trump's campaign, and they both share a raging hate-boner for Hillary. Perhaps he can expect a presidential pardon?

    Kind of an interesting comment, with traces of insight, though troll-modded into near invisibility.

    To actually deserve the insightful mod (which is where the mod wars have left your comment at this time), I think you should have considered the underlying dynamics of journalism. The objective of all journalism, even at Wikipedia in the early days, is to reveal the truth. Not a problem except for people who have dirty secrets to hide, and there are plenty of them. Actually, if you are looking for dirty secrets to reveal, Trump is the mother lode.

    Now if Trump thought that Assange was holding dirty secrets about him, then that would be the only factor determining whether or not Trump would intervene. If Trump believed that Assange was about to release Trump's tax returns unless he was pardoned, then you can safely bet Trump would pardon Assange in the proverbial New York minute.

    In contrast, if Assange was a real journalist and he had received Trump's tax returns, then he would have first attempted to validate their authenticity, and if satisfied with their authenticity, he would have released them already. That was the original idea of WikiLeaks before Assange became the story. To me the question of guilt is whether Assange made himself into the story, in which case he is certainly guilty of bad journalism, or whether it was inevitable that Assange would become the story, in which case Assange is merely incompetent and the underlying crime is the state of journalism today.

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    1. Re:The meat is where the trolls lie? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      All this does is leave three governments looking like a pack of shit stains. One for betraying it's own citizen. The UK just lame as fuck and sticking it to an Australian and cheering, oh yeah that sold well. And the corrupt US government just looking as slimey and corrupt as fuck. It would have been far smarter for the UK to deport Assange to Australia and the US could have tried for extradition with clean hands.

      Now three countries looks as dirty as fuck and you know, you absolutely know the opposition parties of three countries are going to have a field day with this. Trump was so afraid he already tried to disown, May a utter moron cheered it on like a victory, anything better in the news than Brexit but already causing real harm and the other just a slimey betrayer and killed his election chances.

      The Australian government with election coming up, could not be a worse time, trying to pretend nothing is happening. With the election coming up, they can play their own card and demand Assange be returned to Australia first, prior to the extradition hearing, this a smart pre-election commercial, protecting the rights of Australian citizens. Of course the opposition could play it cards close to their chest and play that just before the vote for maximum impact without leaving much space for response from the sitting government who will role into the election looking like they have betrayed a prominent Australian citizen.

      The US government just looks like a pack of shit stains who do not give one fuck about the rights of Australian citizens at home or abroad.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    2. Re:The meat is where the trolls lie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not Wikipedia, but Wikileaks. And I know it wasn't your autocorrect.

  260. Re:Releasing US classified work is legal in UK. by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

    So, also a crime in the UK and therefore extraditable.

  261. Re:Those who said the US wanted him were called cr by Cederic · · Score: 1

    The mood on Assange here on Slashdot has suspiciously shifted to "he deserves to be jailed".

    You really think that? Almost everybody suggesting a prison sentence is needed is referring to the UK law he broke.

    I'm seeing very little to no support for locking him up in the US. You seem to be paranoid, agenda pushing or just fucking terrible at assessing written information.

  262. What if WikiLeaks got Trump's tax returns? by shanen · · Score: 1

    When you say "insurance policy", are you speculating that Assange might have some interesting dirty on the great dirtbag himself? Perhaps more drone videos? This time showing Trump cheating at golf?

    Seriously, I'd love to see a video of Trump kicking the other player's ball into the bunker.

    Even more seriously, the FBI should be bugging Trump's phone to see if Assange calls to offer a deal for a pardon. LOTS of categories of information that a REAL journalist might have revealed... WikiLeaks must have some of it?

    Hmm... That gave me a weird idea. Maybe it goes back to Putin and his plans for Trump? I'm actually skeptical that any P-tape exists (though perhaps I shouldn't believe in any limit to Trump's idiocy), but Assange wouldn't care about the authenticity at this point. If Putin gave such a putative tape to Assange and then recorded Trump talking with Assange about it... Well, the kompromat doesn't get any better than that.

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    1. Re:What if WikiLeaks got Trump's tax returns? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Well it's interesting that Trump has changed his tune from praising Wikileaks, to pretending he doesn't know anything about it. Maybe he knows that Assange does have something on it.

      Of course the other problem is that if Assange goes down it further de-ligitimizes Trump's victory on the back of the leaking of Clinton's emails.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:What if WikiLeaks got Trump's tax returns? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Putin gave such a putative tape to Assange

      That's not how it works. Putin would never release such valuable kompromat to anyone. He will never release this information, because he'd lose leverage over Trump like that.

  263. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by tbannist · · Score: 1

    The U.S. has charged him with one count of violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), according to the Verge.

    --
    Fanatically anti-fanatical
  264. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    >Assange is not a US citizen, and is not subject to US laws

    What the heck are you both smoking? Anybody is subject to US laws if US gets custody of the guy.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  265. Re: Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The pentagon papers were exfiltrated by a patriot and then given to the media. At no point did a NYT reporter say, thanks for part one, but can you steal xyz for us too, here is a false badge to get into the nuclear code room, or anything like that.

  266. Re: Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gee I wonder why nobody likes us...

  267. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He then tries to escape, and, very regrettably, had to be shot in the back.

    That's ridiculous. He is going to at least have wrestled a gun from a guard during said escape, and shot himself in the back. Several times. Possibly he's going to have also fallen down some stairs a few times after shooting himself.

  268. Chomsky Said It Best by JumbleGuy · · Score: 1

    "Julian Assange's crime is to violate the fundamental principles of government, to lift the veil of secrecy that protects power from scrutiny and keeps it from evaporating. It is well understood by the powerful that lifting the veil may cause power to evaporate. It may even lead to authentic freedom and democracy if an aroused public comes to understand that force is on the side of the governed, and that it can be there for them if they choose to control their own fate. We should all thank Julian for his courage and integrity in providing us with this precious gift, at great cost to himself, much to our shame." - Noam Chomsky https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  269. FIFY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    's cute that people still think the US i follow any sort of rules or laws.

  270. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by KeensMustard · · Score: 0

    I doubt Trump would even consider a pardon. This isn't about Hillary but Manning, and I doubt his supporters, or more importantly the Trump Network, also known as Fox News, would look kindly on what would be spun as a pardon for someone who helped leak military secrets, and thus supported treason. Trump, if anything, is very careful not to piss off his core supporters or Fox News.

    They don't seem to mind that Trump committed treason, so who knows? The US is not run by people who respect the rule of law.

  271. Public masturbation of 9623 by shanen · · Score: 1

    Z^-2

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    1. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I have no idea what you mean by this comment. I've seen you post it elsewhere and it was equally meaningless there too.

      Is this some meme you've invented but forgotten to explain?

      You probably don't even recognise the irony of posting this after complaining about a lack of substantive comments.

    2. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by shanen · · Score: 1

      Z^-3

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    3. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Ooh, you're so edgy.

      I think. I mean, I still don't know what the fuck you're on about.

      What a cock.

    4. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by shanen · · Score: 1

      Z^-4

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    5. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Nope, still making no sense.

      I can only assume that you realised you couldn't actually engage with me at an intellectual level.

    6. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by shanen · · Score: 1

      Z^-5

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    7. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Ah, further nonsense.

      One day you may actually grow up and be able to converse with other people. One day.

    8. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by shanen · · Score: 1

      Z^-6

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    9. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by Cederic · · Score: 1

      For someone complaining about a lack of substantive posts you certainly have a very high noise to content ratio.

      Have you considered growing up at some point?

    10. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by shanen · · Score: 1

      Z^-7

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    11. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Ah, another masterpiece of a post. You truly know how to engage in spirited debate.

    12. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by shanen · · Score: 1

      Z^-8

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    13. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Ah, another post lacking in imagination, creativity or indeed content.

      You're embarrassing yourself.

    14. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by shanen · · Score: 1

      Z^-9

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    15. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by Cederic · · Score: 1

      What, you're still at it? It must be hard going through life with so little comprehension of the world around you.

    16. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by shanen · · Score: 1

      Z^-10

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    17. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Ah, double figures. How tiring for your dainty fingers to add that extra digit.

      How tiring for your dainty brain too.

    18. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by shanen · · Score: 1

      Z^-11

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    19. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by Cederic · · Score: 1

      No variation? No insight? No substance.

      But I'm used to that from you.

    20. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by shanen · · Score: 1

      Z^-12

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    21. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by Cederic · · Score: 1

      ooh, a reply on Slashdot. Lets see what delightful discourse has been displayed.

      Ah. No, it's you. Delightful discourse isn't your thing.

    22. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by shanen · · Score: 1

      Z^-13

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    23. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Unluckily for you I'm not scared of the number 13.

      You however appear to be scared by people challenging your world view.

    24. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by shanen · · Score: 1

      Z^-14

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    25. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I see you're still trying. Sadly still failing.

    26. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by shanen · · Score: 1

      Z^-15

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    27. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I'm intrigued that you're too busy reading books about wikileaks to write anything useful but not too busy to post nonsense on Slashdot.

    28. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by shanen · · Score: 1

      Z^-16

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    29. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I'm beginning to think you just like the attention. I feel sorry for you.

    30. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by shanen · · Score: 1

      Z^-17

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    31. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Still at it? You do know it's possible to get medical help, just pick up the phone.

    32. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by shanen · · Score: 1

      Z^-18

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    33. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by Cederic · · Score: 1

      It's ok, you can do it. Just pick up the phone, call someone that can help.

      You clearly need it.

    34. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by shanen · · Score: 1

      Z^-19

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    35. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by Cederic · · Score: 1

      So is there someone we could call? Your carer must be looking for you by now.

    36. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by shanen · · Score: 1

      Z^-20

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    37. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I'm trying to watch the football. Stop distracting me with your silliness.

    38. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by shanen · · Score: 1

      Z^-21

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    39. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by Cederic · · Score: 1

      The football's finished, a good score too. You however keep going. Did a wasp lay an egg in your brain turning you into a zombie?

    40. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by shanen · · Score: 1

      Z-^22

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    41. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I'm tired, you'll have to cope without me for the rest of the night.

    42. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by shanen · · Score: 1

      Z^-23

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    43. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Another morning, another pointless post from Shanen.

      But that does seem to be the only kind.

    44. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by shanen · · Score: 1

      Z^-24

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    45. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I just had the horrible thought that you might be in some sort of trouble, forced to communicate only through incomprehensible Slashdot posts.

      Then I celebrated the idea.

    46. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by shanen · · Score: 1

      Z^-25

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    47. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I'm losing mental capacity every time I read one of your messages. You're actually causing early onset dementia.

    48. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by shanen · · Score: 1

      Z^-26

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    49. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by Cederic · · Score: 1

      On the flipside, you're demonstrating symptoms of early onset dementia.

    50. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by shanen · · Score: 1

      Z^-27

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    51. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Perhaps it would help if I explained how conversations work. You say something stupid. I helpfully educate you. You thank me and we move on.

      You've totally fucked up step three.

    52. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by shanen · · Score: 1

      Z^-28

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    53. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by Cederic · · Score: 1

      No no, that's still not it.

      Never mind, you're clearly not cut out for adult conversation.

    54. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by shanen · · Score: 1

      Z^-29

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    55. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by Cederic · · Score: 1

      What if I start to use short words? Will that help?

    56. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by shanen · · Score: 1

      Z^-30

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    57. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by Cederic · · Score: 1

      No, you appear to be beyond help. I'm amazed you can even use a keyboard.

    58. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by shanen · · Score: 1

      Z^-31

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    59. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Still no witty insight from you. What a waste of a life.

    60. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by shanen · · Score: 1

      Z^-32

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    61. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I see you're still struggling on. I also noticed you posting utter nonsense on another topic, but decided you weren't worth the effort of a reply.

    62. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by shanen · · Score: 1

      Z^-33

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    63. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Fortunately one of us has a brain. I'd ask you to guess which one but that would require a brain.

    64. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by shanen · · Score: 1

      Z^-34

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    65. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I had a nice walk in the sunshine this morning. You posted this nonsense.

    66. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by shanen · · Score: 1

      Z^-35

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    67. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by Cederic · · Score: 1

      1335: Receive email. It's an automated message from Slashdot.
      1335: Open email. Click on embedded link. Web browser opens to a Slashdot page.
      1335: Scan the page. Hit 'Reply'. Start typing.
      1336: Use mouse to press the 'Submit' button. Post witticism beyond capabilities of person to whom the reply is sent.

    68. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by shanen · · Score: 1

      Z^-36

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    69. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Oh dear, did I offend poor widdle shanen.

      Tough. Get used to it.

    70. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by shanen · · Score: 1

      Z^-37

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    71. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by Cederic · · Score: 1

      The problem with Easter is that chocolate eggs fragment in an untidy way, resulting in things like chocolate flakes getting melted into your duvet cover, looking like you've shit the bed.

      I wouldn't mind but looking at it reminds me of you.

    72. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by shanen · · Score: 1

      Z^-38

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    73. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by Cederic · · Score: 1

      It continues. Almost as though you lack the intelligence to try something different.

    74. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by shanen · · Score: 1

      Z^-39

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    75. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I've written two works of fiction since you started doing this. They're online and gaining an appreciative audience.

      You.. overused the letter Z.

    76. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by shanen · · Score: 1

      Z^-40

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    77. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I bet you buy and use an ovipositor dildo.

      It's ok, I'm not judging.

    78. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by shanen · · Score: 1

      Z^-41

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    79. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by Cederic · · Score: 1

      That's the spirit. One day you'll get it right and actually construct a sentence.

      Shouldn't take more than a few years.

    80. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by shanen · · Score: 1

      Z^-42

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    81. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Ah, an Adams fan I see.

    82. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by shanen · · Score: 1

      Z^-43

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    83. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by Cederic · · Score: 1

      My boiler broke and leaked water through the ceiling.

      It's still more welcome than you.

    84. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by shanen · · Score: 1

      Z^-44

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    85. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by Cederic · · Score: 1

      My boiler has been fixed and is no longer spewing unwanted waste.

      Unlike you.

    86. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by shanen · · Score: 1

      Z^-45

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    87. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I do hope you've automated this. But no, I'm being foolish there.

      Still, let me help you out with that: https://www.definitions.net/de...

    88. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by shanen · · Score: 1

      Z^-46

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    89. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by Cederic · · Score: 1

      You still don't get it do you. Must be lovely, living in such blissful ignorance.

    90. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by shanen · · Score: 1

      Z^-47

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    91. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Your posts remind me of the yellow pus that squirted out of my cat's anus this morning.

    92. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by shanen · · Score: 1

      Z^-48

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    93. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by Cederic · · Score: 1

      As a result of a vet visit my cat is now once more beautiful and gorgeous.

      Words never used I'm sure with you.

    94. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by shanen · · Score: 1

      Z^-49

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    95. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Some good news for you: When I kill myself it wont be because of you.

    96. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by shanen · · Score: 1

      Z^-50

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    97. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Perhaps it might help if I tell you that nobody on Slashdot cares about your post count.

    98. Re:Public masturbation of 9623 by shanen · · Score: 1

      Z^-51

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  272. Re: Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ....which is part of Journalism, and the point of having it.

    Those in power performing criminal acts will try and hide evidence of their crimes.

    What we have here is an organisation that published this evidence that isn't thoroughly corrupted by the CIA and the power interests. THAT is why he is targeted.

    If you don't understand this - you're not paying enough attention, or you're here to post garbage on purpose.

  273. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

    Wow...that is so wrong I don't even know how to start...it is OK to publish classified information as long as it "landed in your lap"?

  274. Re: Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Better protect your precious bodily fluids. The commies are out to get you, you musty old fuck.

  275. He might have lasted longer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just don't think Hilary had much to do with it. We all forget how much Wikileaks did before Hilary because he helped give us Trump. But Assange leaked mountains of documents from the wealthiest people on Earth. There was no scenario where he got away with that in the current oligarchy. The Hilary stuff is small potatoes. She was always just another bag man for the ultra wealthy. She never once threatened to upset their apple carts. What doomed Assange was getting on the bad side of people with unlimited access to money and power. That he escaped them for as long as he did is a minor miracle.

    I'm not sure he "escaped" them at all. He was effectively imprisoned, on Ecuador's dime no less. Win-win: "we" get him locked up and "they" pay the tab.

    Had he not been destabilizing governments, smearing feces on the walls of his room[1], etc. the Ecuadorians might have let him stick around longer--after all, revoking asylum is not something any country would ever do lightly--it undermines their ability to make such offers to others in the future and have those "others" not seriously question the wisdom, or value, of such an offer.

    [1]https://www.bild.de/politik/ausland/politik-ausland/wikileaks-assange-soll-botschafts-waende-mit-kot-beschmiert-haben-61193968.bild.html (German, I'll leave it to someone else to try and find reporting in English on the subject, if it even exists. To get some news you have to leave the realm of your own country, and quite often, language).

  276. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Immerman · · Score: 1

    So they have. Wired has an interesting discussion. https://www.wired.com/story/ju...

    Dicey at best, since it sounds like he may have only made the offer to crack a password, but the CFAA is extremely broadly worded.

    Worse, the statue of limitations ran out years ago, and so they have declared it an act of terrorism in order to get around that little inconvenience.

    Terrorism? Seriously? Exactly which civilians were threatened?

    Is it any wonder that so many people assume this is a case of the US government exacting revenge for embarrassing it?

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  277. Wow, what a fanboi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would become an actual fan of Trump if he pardoned Assange. I'm not holding my breath, mind you, but it would be a heck of a symbol that the US still has some tenuous hold on the rule of law.

    Really? You are SUCH a fanboi of that Narcissist that would become a fan of an avowed racist who separates children from the parents en masse (50,000 and counting), who has been accused by multiple women of rape (two while still children), who has called for open violence against real reporters (in constrast to 2-bit hackers who hole up in foreign embassies), who has encouraged foreign powers to meddle in our elections while running for office, who enriches himself at public expense in violation of the constitution, who is an admitted serial sexual assaulter of women ("I just grab 'em by the p*ssy") etc. ad nauseum, all because he would abuse his pardon power (yet again) to let your personal "hero" off?

    The only thing correct is that our hold on the rule of law over here is tenuous, but not for any of the reasons you cite or imply. Trump and his enablers are the ones actively and constantly assaulting our institutions and rule of law. Not those trying to enforce it.

    But then you know that, don't you. Because you're already a fan of Trump and Assange ... you just want to pretend you're not because you know how little gravitas that particular admission will grant you.

  278. Re: Hacking US computers illegal, ask Robert Muell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He didn't hack into shit. He published info that was given to him.

    He is charged with assisting Manning, in particular in helping Manning hack a password. That makes him a co-conspirator.

  279. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

    it is OK to publish classified information as long as it "landed in your lap"?

    Yep. At least if you define "OK" as "Legal". Your personal morality may disagree, but your personal morality is also not the law.

    As long as you're a civilian who never had a security clearance, and you did not assist the leaker, you can publish away.

    Heck, if you're a civilian with a clearance and don't receive anything of value for the leak, and you leak it "to the public" instead of handing it over to a foreign country, you also haven't broken the law. See: Ellsberg.

  280. Are you a US citizen? by 3seas · · Score: 1

    The Founders of the United States fought for and established, as Thomas Jefferson summed up, A Government Of, For, And By the People. This inherently requires the people to know what their Business of Government is doing. The Grand Jury in this matter has been and continues to be in contempt of the peoples right to know. Why is it not obvious to those so against Assange? The Second Amendment is second for a reason, where the first is about talk as is made clear in Declaration of Independence.

    So consider this a test for you, where do you stand in honoring the Founders of the United States or otherwise? This is about the Peoples Business of Government as intended by the Founders of the US, so a work order based on the Declaration of Independence and in consideration of population growth to the point the people are no longer being heard due population size, so read and do http://3seas.org/ , send it to your representatives to resolve this change in population to be in alignment with honoring the Founders of the United States!

    Note: I have become aware of politicians hiring people to filter their mail with bs excuses of not being a constituent regardless of their working on a federal level that effects ALL US citizens.

    Manning, Julian/Wikileaks & Snowden have honored the Founders of the United States, how about you?

  281. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by multi+io · · Score: 1

    The US has never asked anyone to arrest him with the intention of extraditing him. We have nothing we can extradite him for. ... Extradition to the US is out of the question.

    Let's just say your post didn't age very well.

  282. Re: Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hillary also violated her security clearance.

  283. Re: Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop being such a fucking moron.

    Yes, anyone can sue anyone, but we hold our DPP to a higher standard: you can't, and shouldn't, just go around charging anyone and seeing what sticks.

  284. Re: Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please donâ(TM)t deadname trans folks.

  285. It'll be hard... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem is that they probably want Trump to pardon Assange to claim obstruction...

    There's more background here, but I don't really trust the same DoJ that wrote about wanting to lock in Trump in a formal, chargeable way after being caught illegally spying on his campaign and working with a large group of foreign spies to do so...

  286. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by BringsApples · · Score: 1

    Both of you guys are forgetting that there's an American base in Cuba. Some people are there. I hear it sucks.

    --
    Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
  287. Jews killed Jesus! Christians kill Julian! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jews killed Jesus! American Christians kill Assange! History repeats itself! I hope a better species takes over!

  288. Re:What's he worrying about? by guacamole · · Score: 1

    Andy McCabe, Comey, maybe Brennon, but I'd be totally surprised if any of these get much jail time..

    And don't forget Strzok.

    Even a little jail time is going to be excellent because these tools have been getting a celebrity treatment from the cable TV media, publishers, the democratic members of congress, and on other liberal platforms. We need to expose the crocks that they were, and all the media that gave these rogue unhinged spies a platform should be shamed.

  289. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Xylantiel · · Score: 1

    Wait, so your argument is that to fight corruption, we should ignore the law at the whim of... who exactly? You don't seem to realize that is just another form of corruption. Your argument boils down to "People I like should only have to follow the laws I agree with (right this second)." That is the picture of a corrupt state. I think it is you that needs to do a bit more thinking. Most of us reading this live in democracies. We can hold a corrupt government accountable by voting for different people and changing laws. The current problem, in the US at least and other places as well, is that a large fraction of the public is more interested in corrupting the government in their favor rather than reducing corruption.

  290. That might be the case. I don't know about the int by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even if WikiLeaks changed how they release the information there are other explanations. WikiLeaks had trouble with some media who were editorializing the information themselves. Yet they depended on them to censor out wat was really national security (and they did filter large parts of that)
    On the other hand, incredibly little happened after the first big troves were released. The sheeple proved to have a minuscule span of attention, and the media was quick to ignore/minimize/divert the results on status Quo.
    It's not certain, but controlled release of information still makes sense also with good intentions. I am seriously surprised at how easily Americans fall into Russian scaremongering, even those educated in prestigious universities. It's probably all those years under the Cold War propaganda machine.
    Trump took office with the most Republican to date cabinet. Full of oligarchs, full of Hawks. He's been diligent to big oil, big Telco and big pharma. And actually, with the cuts, big dollar in general. You need no external influence to explain Trump. It's silly to ask for one. Occam is clear: American money gave you your president. Again

  291. pedo pizza parlour basement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She can run an international pedophile ring out of a pizza parlor and never even get investigated.

    Hillary is so skilled she can run it out of a building's basement even when it does not even have a basement.

  292. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > The US has never asked anyone to arrest him with the intention of extraditing him

    Ever since he made the claim that the US was seeking extradition, until literally MINUTES after your post, the story, repeated over and over again, was that USG wasn't looking to arrest him. I've always found that claim total crap, and sure enough it was proved as such- mere minutes after his protection was rescinded, there was an extradition order made.

    That was, OBVIOUSLY, always the plan. Always, just like he said and everyone countered with your crappy lie, for years.

  293. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As to Assange, he cannot be held criminally liable for any of the classified data leaked to Wikileaks and published by him on the site. He never agreed to protect the information from release.

    He is being charged with conspiracy to commit computer intrusion because he (tried to) help Manning in cracking passwords to gain access; see paragraph 15:

    * http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/04/11/assange_indictment_0_0.pdf

    If he had simply had taken the information and leaked it, he would have been fine and probably protected under press freedom principles. When you try to break in, electronically and/or physically, to get to information then you've just cross a line.

  294. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    People like you can't read between the lines, you can't hold a corrupt government accountable when they can make they can classify their corruption and bad behavior as state secrets.

    Of course you can. You just have to do it legally. Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras helped Snowden leak a whole bunch of stuff and they haven't been touched by US law enforcement:

    * https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/04/11/glenn-greenwald-returns-united-states-laura-poitras_n_5133584.html

    Assange's problem is that you didn't just received and expose information, he is accused of helping Manning to break into classified computer networks. That is what the indictment is and what he is being extradited for.

    If you had simply leaked received documents he would have been fine from US prosecution. He chose to be an active participant.

  295. Good. Fuck him. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And let's get someone who's not an egotistical cunt running wikileaks.

  296. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He is not being charged with breaking the Espionage Act. If charged it will for conspiring with Manning to circumvent a password protected US government system containing classified information.

  297. you are what ruins slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    enjoy your troll mods, you son of a bitch. Don't waste our time with your fallacious bullshit.

    1. Re:you are what ruins slashdot by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      enjoy your troll mods, you son of a bitch. Don't waste our time with your fallacious bullshit.

      U mad bro?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  298. Re: Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    interesting and insightful, mod parent up

  299. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except all it takes is one carefully worded statement from Assange: "I guess I'm being persecuted for thinking Trump would be a better president than Hillary." Fox News and the American right wing would shift to take up the cause and a pardon on US soil would be a possibility.

  300. Re: Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shut the fuck up! People will mod how they feel is appropriate. Stop begging like a little bitch.

  301. For good reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Show me the man, and I'll show the the crime, as the saying goes.

    Speaking of which, Assange probably figured he'd get tortured into believing he was a woman at some CIA black site, or worse, if he didn't find refuge in the embassy. Wait for him to announce how much he loves Big Brother, before disappearing completely from public view.

    1. Re:For good reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3...2...1... til he finds out he's a she, too, and has found God. So much compassion! All the trans rights activists will flock behind him/her like one cohort! Because they have one more person to lose his penis and balls! Them ordering people not to deadname him/her!

      /s

      In Assange's case at least, I'd welcome him becoming trans. Then there will only be less men willing to undermine-- and on account of that, only more men willing to protect the United States and its allies.

  302. Re: Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "But simple refusal makes it less likely that a future request of their own be honored."

    There's nothing to lose. The US flat out refuses to extradite citizens out of the country.

    Fuck you arseholes.

    If you won't do it, then why the fuck should anyone else.

  303. Re:What's he worrying about? by guacamole · · Score: 1

    There is certainly more than enough evidence to question whether FBI's spying on Trump campaign was lawful. They used Steele's fake "dossier" as a justification to start monitoring Carter Cage in the FISA application in the summer of 2016. Any FBI agent must have known then that this "dossier" was a work of fiction that belongs on the same shelf with James Bond and Jasson Boerne. This was also about the same time when atent Strzok was boasting in his texts to sweatheart that they were working on the "insurance" for the case if Trump won. He also moanded that certain FBI bureaucrat was questioning the integrity of the source in the FISA app. The source of couse was that British Steele who managed to plant his work of fiction in FBI and on the desks of major newspapers. We have to give Steele credit because he was actually good at doing the later.

  304. Fraudulent charges. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/how-you-can-be-certain-that-the-us-charge-against-assange-is-fraudulent-8eb0caa1c4f6

  305. That's not really the difference by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    the difference is that Trump vs Hilary didn't matter to anyone with any real power. Despite what Glen Beck will tell you Hillary really doesn't have a global kill squad of female assassins with the "Can I talk to your manager" haircut. She's just a dumb broad good at manipulating inter-party politics to her advantage (but not good enough to beat a moderately charismatic black guy from Hawaii).

    The Hillary stuff didn't impact the People Who Matter (tm) because whether it was her or Trump they still won. Hillary was a right of center candidate who wants to accelerate corporatism and outsourcing. Trump's all that with a bit more Evangelical crazy (thanks to Pence) and a $1 trillion dollar tax cut. The tax cut was a nice bonus, but it was just that, a bonus.

    Now, those other docs he leaked let the world know where those rich were hiding their taxable dollars. Parts of Europe are busy cracking down. They'll fail, because their voters will get distracted by nonsense like scary Muslims, Brexit, and whatever passes for wedge issues and minorities over there, but it'll take some effort to right that ship and get back to eliminating the middle class. Assange screwed with the plans of the powerful. The People Who Matter (tm). He's going to jail. Probably for the rest of his life.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  306. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Immerman · · Score: 2

    Not forgetting, but that comes later, after he's been handed over. He is accused of terrorism after all (the statute of limitations on the CFAA has already run out, but apparently terrorism accusations can extend that)

    It is a good reminder of exactly what sort of sadistic illegal treatment the US government is happy to inflect though.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  307. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

    They can subpoena him regarding the origin of the DNC emails. He insists that they didn't come from Russia. Perhaps it wasn't Seth Rich, but that doesn't mean it wasn't an inside job.

    We can only sit and wait to learn the truth. Hopefully Assange can continue to help us uncover it.

  308. Re: Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

    It would be interesting if Tim Cook was extradited to the EU.

    But like it's being said, the US protects it's oligarchy.

  309. Re:What's he worrying about? by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

    with his inevitable train-wreck of a presidency

    Thank goodness a reasonable number of the burning boxcars have Democratic cargo in them.

    Trump is the Drano president. All the screeching grease in the drain is refreshing to witness.

  310. Assange should plead guilty by aberglas · · Score: 1

    to what ever they charge him with in Sweden.

    Swedish jails are luxury compared to US hell holes. And he aint getting out of a US jail any time soon. (Would need to have a democrat president give him a pardon.)

    1. Re: Assange should plead guilty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe, except the last Democrat running for office lost in part because of him, I doubt they'd offer him anything.

      The US wants to make an example out of him, that is true of both parties.

  311. Rape charges by aberglas · · Score: 1

    The more likely scenario is that the rape charges have nothing to do with the USA and that they are bogus.

    The Swedish prosecutor is a rabid feminist. And her behavior throughout has been terrible. Always refusing to interview and charge Assange outside Sweden even thought the practice was common place.

    So now she is in a bad place. She will need to put up or shut up. That will be the next phase in this farce.

    But if Assange has any brains he will plead guilty to whatever he is charged with. Swedish jails are holiday camps compared to US hell holes.

    (And with US "tough on crime" he is in for decades. The first charge is just to get him out of the UK.)

  312. Assange is guilty of bad journalism, but... by shanen · · Score: 1

    I think I agree with your reaction, especially the last part, and it is part of why I have reconsidered and reformed my position on this story. Not much credit to Slashdot, but mostly some other stuff I read and probably one video news story. (However your comment is now partial reinforcement for my new analysis.)

    Now I'm thinking that Assange's big crime was bad journalism, and even though I think Assange was quite guilty of quite bad journalism, I now basically think it is wrong for the government to attack him only on that basis. Lots of better journalists could be attacked for their mistakes if every incident of "bad journalism" was a crime. Right now I'm not clear what crimes they think they can stick on him, but I'm even considering a theory that the current charges are deliberately "trumped up" so that Trump can prevent Assange from going down.

    I do NOT think that Trump is capable of thinking up this strategy, but it is within the cunning and guile of Kellyanne Conway, the greatest liar still working for Trump. I think Trump is about to pardon Assange and claim he is a champion of free speech and "REAL" journalism.

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    1. Re:Assange is guilty of bad journalism, but... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

      I suppose the other consideration for Trump is that Wikileaks appears to be his ally, so having Assange around leaking stuff for the 2020 cycle will help him. It was very convenient last time - no direct collusion apparently, but Wikileaks was happy to publish material obtained from Russia.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Assange is guilty of bad journalism, but... by shanen · · Score: 2

      I think it's relevant to consider that Assange is not a pure-hearted useful idiot. He was also motivated by spite and anger. I think the funny part is that Obama was pursuing Assange for making Dubya look bad. Most of the current mess in the Middle East is Dubya's fault (though it was Cheney's decisions), but when you bring that up now, the usual reaction is "Dubya who?"

      I can really see Trump pardoning Assange and proclaiming himself the defender of non-fake journalism. The problem is that Assange is not reliable and he might have another spasm of bad journalism, with Trump as the new target. I was only partly joking when I suggested taking Assange's cat hostage.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  313. Re: Hacking US computers illegal, ask Robert Muel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's been falsely charged for so many things since he outed some of the US war crimes in Iraq, that it is a tedious job to even list them.

    This is revenge and a threat to journalism which exposes US crimes, pure and simple.

  314. Re: Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sorry about your butthurt, fatso.

  315. Re: Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sweden "lost" a few people to CIA rendition teams. In quite a few cases there was no need for cooperation, people were just snatched from the street and put on a "private" plane.

     

  316. Re: Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Titanek · · Score: 1

    If there are no enemy combatants and only civilians as you say... what do you call someone who takes up arms and engages in war like activities.

    Republicans?

  317. Re: Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most normal people just went along with it. They deserved what they lost.

  318. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 0

    It's cute that you think these procedures matter.

    --
    Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
  319. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    meh. conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime. someone in his position should know the law.

    if the evidence they have sticks then he is cooked. shouldnt have helped with that hash.

  320. So, what now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What now, internet weirdos? Hunh? The EU Copyright Directive spells the utter and final defeat of what remains of the various "Pirate Parties", they'll disband soon. New legislation adopted worldwide is killing unchecked speech on the internet and has introduced widespread censorship. People are cheering these moves. I don't see the internet "routing around the damage" anywhere. Encryption is being outlawed left and right. Surveillance is everywhere. TPM is on all computers. Linux on the desktop is dead in the water. Tim Berners-Lee ended up supporting DRM. Looks like you're totally defeated without even having tried to fight. Not that you could really do anything, of course: you're not only cowardly but also inept. :)

  321. New hypothesis of the Level 3 lie? by shanen · · Score: 1

    I largely agree with you, but I'm seeing things differently after getting some more input on it.

    My current theory is that they deliberately trumped up a ridiculous charge against Assange so that it will look relatively innocuous when Trump pardons Assange and proclaims himself the champion of free speech and non-fake journalism. Not actually Trump's idea. Nowhere near smart enough, but I think it's right in Kellyanne Conway's line of confusion. If so, the pardon might come out as soon as they Assange lands in the States (though Trump could not care less about any effects on the election in that shithole country Australia).

    The only residual problem is if Assange does more bad journalism, but this time against Trump. On that theory they might be holding the cat hostage.

    I do think Assange is pretty much worthless as a journalist. He made himself into the story, mostly in search of more money. However bad journalism is not a crime.

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  322. Fuck Assange. Good arrest. by buck-yar · · Score: 1

    US law applies around the world, even if you aren't a US citizen. The reach of US law enforcement is long, like my dick. You f with the US govt, they will grab you out of the hole you're hiding in half way around the world and drag your ass back to federal district court to face the music.

    1. Re:Fuck Assange. Good arrest. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      US law applies around the world, even if you aren't a US citizen. The reach of US law enforcement is long, like my dick. You f with the US govt, they will grab you out of the hole you're hiding in half way around the world and drag your ass back to federal district court to face the music.

      Exactly, and this is not limited to the US. All nations can call for extradition of (alleged) criminals. That is why extradition treaties exist.

      I'm surprised that you are still at +1. The people who support what Assange has done are in a rage these last couple days.

      Regardless, a non-US citizen can be charged with crimes involving the dissemination of US classified information, or interference in government activities like voting. and the USA has an extradition treaty with Great Britain. Other nations might do the same if they were involved in similar activities. This is fact. It will be very surprising if GB does not honor this - if they had no plans to do so, they would likely have just left him walk out of the embassy, and find a place to go that is less likely to extradite.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  323. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by xenobyte · · Score: 1

    He's not wrong, in that they're not charging Assange with treason or with receiving classified materials.

    They've made up charges, saying he "hacked" a classified system with Bradley Manning, and the two of them "hacked a password" as part of a conspiracy to retrieve classified documents.

    Yes, seriously, Assange is being charged with conspiracy to hack a password. It's the only way they could come up with to extradite him.

    Exactly. Same thing with Kim Dotcom (founder and owner of MegaUpload) - he operated a popular bitlocker and made money selling storage space and bandwidth. In order to get him extradited from New Zealand they made up a bunch of stuff, including conspiracy and what have you. In reality he just aided copyright infringement which is a misdemeanor and thus very far from an extraditable offense.

    --
    "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
  324. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by xenobyte · · Score: 1

    You can think that all you want, people with a brain know Assange has been stalked with trumped up charges from the very corrupt people he's been exposing, the whole thing is a sham for those who are educated.

    Well, the charges from Sweden were rather far-fetched but not completely insane as Sweden has a pretty feminist rape law that basically allows women to change their minds after the fact and still get a rape conviction against the man they had sex with. In the Assange case he had sex with two women in Sweden and both now claims that they agreed to have protected sex only and Assange didn't use a condom. He claims there was no conditions to the sex and a written contract or similar is not required so it's words against words, and the law then favors the women only.

    --
    "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
  325. Re:Those who said the US wanted him were called cr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those "theories" had more to do with Sweden having a proven record of secretly handing a prisoner to the US, who was subsquently tortured by the US.

  326. Chronology is important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The American arrest warrant was received and served after he had remanded to Southall for his breach of bail, which is why he had to be re-arrested.

  327. What did anyone expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The needs of the many (the Ecuadorian population) far outweigh the needs of the few (the autistic neckbeards who yak about "online rights") or the one (Assange). Pissing off a major economic power is not a good idea when your own economy is not that good. Besides, there wasn't any outcome from the Wikileaks revelations. People did not take it to the streets. No rebellion happened. Elections were not swayed. Nothing changed. People do not care about surveillance, and are mostly in favor of it. New restrictive laws that would have been unthinkable are now passed left and right to the approval of many. People feel safe with a stronger, centralized, all-seeing and all-powerful state. In the end, the concept of individual "freedom" was only a temporary phenomenon in a long history of tyranny. Serfdom is the natural state of humanity.

  328. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by BringsApples · · Score: 1

    Not forgetting, but that comes later, after he's been handed over. He is accused of terrorism after all (the statute of limitations on the CFAA has already run out, but apparently terrorism accusations can extend that)

    You're good at reading between the lines. Thank you.

    --
    Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
  329. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by richieb · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but what if I hack an American bank, steal some money and the send it to you. Are you criminally liable?

    --
    ...richie - It is a good day to code.
  330. Re: Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They indicted him under CFAA years ago before time ran out. Theyve just been waiting to get their hands on him.

  331. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Immerman · · Score: 1

    I can't take credit for that - Wired has an article with a good breakdown of what's going on.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  332. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is Assange "pretending" to be a journalist? Has he called himself that? What exactly makes somebody a real journalist?

    In the view of people like the guy you responded to and several politicians and US officials, "journalist" is a term for those authorized by the government to publish approved information. As long as they stick to approved information, they have something called "freedom of speech".

    Assanges crime: Attempted freedom of speech, aka. pretending to be a journalist.

  333. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is not a precedent you want to set.

    It would mean that anyone is subject to (Saudi|Chinese|Russian|BestKorean) laws, as long as those countries can get their hands on the guy, and there is nothing the US can do about it, because they're the ones setting the precedent.

    Then you can say goodbye to freedom of speech, because that's against the law in several of those countries.

    And before you say "but the US doesn't have an extradition treaty with those countries" - Australia (home of Julian Assange) is not involved in this extradition.

  334. Re: Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are missing an important point. Australia (Assanges home country) is not involved in the extradition.

    So no, burning the Koran does not need to be illegal in the US, and the US does not need an extradition treaty with Saudi Arabia or its neighbors. If this precedent is set (as some people in the US seem to want), all you need to do is go on vacation or to a conference somewhere outside the US, and bam, off to Saudi Arabia for head decapitaion.

  335. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And whatever happened to all the people (including government officials from SE, UK and US) arguing that this was really about the rape case, and not an excuse to turn him over to the US.

    On top of that, they are just about to prove to mens rights advocates that false rape accusations ARE a thing, putting the final nail in believing the rape victim - if you can't even trust rape claims in a high profile case like this, when can you?

  336. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He has been claiming the entire time that this was not about the rape case, but an excuse to hand him over to the US the moment he set foot outside the ambassade.

    And people favor of his arrest has been arguing that no such thing would happen, and that his only beef was with Swedish rape legislation.

    Every single one of them has proven the "conspiracy theorists" right.

  337. Re: Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Read the post above, and learn sarcasm you dipshit

  338. Re: Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When referring to them in the past before they transitioned, he was a man.

    Right now he's a man with fake boobs and no penis...

    Go cry about transgender fefes to someone that gives a damn.

  339. Re: Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which treason did Trump commit?
    The Democrat's wet dream of Russian collusion has faded, it's not the hill they want to die on anymore.

    Or have you not taken your meds today?

  340. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by BringsApples · · Score: 1

    You can't take credit for reading an article that applies to a discussion here, and applying what you read in that article to this discussion? Well, I'm still glad that it happened, whoever did it. ;)

    --
    Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
  341. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Immerman · · Score: 1

    Well, maybe that part - not so much reading between the lines though :-D.

    My understanding of legal maneuverings has been in decline ever since Groklaw went silent.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  342. Re:What's he worrying about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, the first Qultist I've seen on /.

    Has your family abandoned your looney ass yet? How many clones does Hillary have now, after she secretly died of AIDS back in the 90's?

  343. Have you been in the legal system? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Being in the legal system fighting for yourself for YEARS is for some WORSE than being in prison. This is a high profile case and the punishment is unknown and a lot of nightmare situations are entirely realistically possible so he wasn't just facing a normal punishment he could legitimately be made to suffer in the worst ways imaginable or murdered or framed and murdered etc. He messed with the US and it's massive corrupt spy machine; which is NOT known for poison. At least with Russia he'd just get sick a short period and die, at random and if careful maybe a decade later. We are talking about a nation which committed war crimes, kidnapped people by mistake and then jailed them for life and force feeds them etc. Not to mention the BS of purposely putting somebody in another country and asking them to violate your laws... because dancing around the law is not bad enough.

    You can't imagine the suffering and paranoia even if you've experienced being a victim of the legal system; even if you've been attacked by much of the media or attacked by politicians etc. What he had to face in the beginning years was so much worse and then yes it was much better but a mild hell drawn out all these years that was probably worse than a nice EU jail.

  344. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but what if I hack an American bank, steal some money and the send it to you. Are you criminally liable?

    If you just send me a thousand bucks and I don't know it was obtained illegally, then no. If you're caught however, I may be required to give the money back.

    If, on the other hand, I know the money was obtained illegally, then yes, I've broken the law.

  345. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As someone who seems to have most experience fighting government without any help from the public apparatus such as media or society, I wondered this myself - why can't we use violence? I was given an answer by a senior that convinced me - If you use violence then your enemy will just call you violent and have public justification to go after you. If you don't use violence then your enemy has to worry about a lot of things besides you.

    This is a complete answer and a very deep truth. This is why terrorists didn't gain any freedom for their lands but instead ended up providing justification for the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. It is why very one-sided and biased laws get passed whether it is anti-terrorist laws or vawa. It is why countries wait for assassination before starting a world war.

    True power doesn't mean getting the results you want, but to permeate the fruits of your action through time.

  346. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are children in U.S. cages, and you are only concerned about a man who let it all happen.

  347. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Assange's treason issue is separate from the military secrets and Manning issue. The 'treason' part comes along because he chose to publish stolen DNC e-mails. The intelligence services were not particularly active on getting him out of the Equadorean embassy, but then he dropped the stolen DNC e-mails in his zeal to get back at Hillary, as a result of which, Trump became elected. Then Trump put Latin-American children in cages, some of whom must also have been from Equador. Both internationally and at the embassy, Assange managed to bite the many hands that fed him.

  348. all Assange/Wikileaks did was reveal the truth... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    ...so all we owe him is a "thank you". If the truth is highly damaging to your candidate - you must have an extremely shitty candidate, one who deserves to lose.

    he helped give us Trump, and he should have known better.

    Assange didn't rig the DNC primary, wanted Trump as a general election opponent, force Hillary to be such a right wing warmongering racist, or prevent her from bothering to show up in the Rust Belt states that were decisive in the election.

  349. Non-response by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    He fought extradition all the way to the UK supreme court and lost at every stage.

    For perfectly valid reasons, toolbag. Which is why Ecuador granted him aslylum in the first place, and why the UN declared his de facto detention unjust and arbitrary. And he only lost appeals in the UK because the country is as much a poodle of the United States today as it was during the the Bush Administration. But there's even precedent for the UK to block extradition for alleged hackers because the United States has a medieval prison system.

    Look, this isn't hard. If this was ever really about alleged rape allegations, all Sweden had to do was promise not to hand Assange over to the United States. Even if you think Assange was lying about returning to Sweden upon such a promise, Ecuador would no longer have a reason to give him asylum, meaning Sweden would have him back one way or the other.

    Heads you're wrong, tails you're wrong.

  350. do YOU, shitweasel? by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    Frankly he has proven himself a liar at every stage

    When. When has Assange lied about anything, much less "every stage". Unlike every pundit, media organization and online troll such as yourself, Assange and Wikileaks have a 100% record of authenticity.

    But lets go ahead and say Assange was lying about his offer to return to Sweden if the government promised not to hand him over to the United States - if such a promise was made, Ecuador would no longer have a reason to grant Assange asylum, meaning Sweden would have him back in their custody regardless, in short order.

    His narcissism and ego have do far more damage to the cause of whistleblowing than anybody ever.

    Your mindless character assassination on behalf of a club you'll never be allowed into is noted, shitweasel.

  351. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Assange's best hope is that the present folks in power refuse to make an extradition request as a payback for the help he has given them.

    That won't work. The damage incurred by Assange in being party to getting Trump elected is so great, that there is no more recourse for Mr. Assange. I think the general modus operandi of intelligence agencies is to contain him as much as possible, and to prevent him from doing any further damage. The Swedish "he raped me after-I-consented" accusation is very useful in this case, because it does not completely release him from custody, should one term of incarceration complete.
     
    I want to see him face the music for that damage he's done.

  352. Re: Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He lost his penis, too? Ohh dear, there is no going back from that :(

    Story at Daily Mail.

  353. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Men are going to use condoms all the time. Even in marriage. Men will stop dating women. They will turn into gays, because it's safer than a woman with a grudge. Men are going to record their female parterns asking for sex and the conditions on how.

  354. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Manning was terribly misguided (by Assange, as it has turned out), while wishing the world to be a better place. President Obama recognised that. Assange would have the world burn if only to get back at Hillary.

  355. Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shhh...